Bolitics The New Condem Government

[colhint]

Am I missing something here. If vat increased 2.5%. and that 2.5% increase amount to £450 a year. Doesn't that equate to an average annual shopping bill of £18000 or a weekly bill of about £350. We don't spend anywhere near that, you lot must all be rich.

[bickster]

Am I missing something here. If vat increased 2.5%. and that 2.5% increase amount to £450 a year. Doesn't that equate to an average annual shopping bill of £18000 or a weekly bill of about £350. We don't spend anywhere near that, you lot must all be rich.

VAT increased on fuel, fuel rise affects every good, most goods increased in price as a result of VAT increase whether zero rated or not which the peas in a pod line apart its perfectly allowable for the fruit and veg to be in picture. This also means it isn't just 2.5% rise

I presume thats the logic anyway

[Kingfisher]

Gary Barlow likes tax loopholes, that's why he votes Tory. He'll perform a few shit songs for a children's ward, but he won't dip into his own pocket.

Gary Barlow OBE (for services to himself). Take that.

[snowychap]

Are we paying £450 per week to cope with Jason Orange's employment?

[thetrees]

Gary Barlow likes tax loopholes, that's why he votes Tory. He'll perform a few shit songs for a children's ward, but he won't dip into his own pocket.

Gary Barlow OBE (for services to himself). Take that.

Gary Barlow likes tax loopholes, that's why he votes Tory. He'll perform a few shit songs for a children's ward, but he won't dip into his own pocket.

Gary Barlow OBE (for services to himself). Take that.

If the message that you are trying to convey is that only Tory voters participate in tax avoidance schemes, I would suggest that your view is even more blinkered than it normally appears.

I know a number of reasonably well off, potentially Tory voters, who were offered such schemes, which were perfectly legal, but turned them down for one reason, and one reason only. Because they were wrong.

In the end, no one should baulk at a 40% higher tax rate for earned income in this country, which worked up until the final squeals of the last Labour administration. You have to earn it to pay it.

[colhint]

 

Am I missing something here. If vat increased 2.5%. and that 2.5% increase amount to £450 a year. Doesn't that equate to an average annual shopping bill of £18000 or a weekly bill of about £350. We don't spend anywhere near that, you lot must all be rich.

VAT increased on fuel, fuel rise affects every good, most goods increased in price as a result of VAT increase whether zero rated or not which the peas in a pod line apart its perfectly allowable for the fruit and veg to be in picture. This also means it isn't just 2.5% rise

I presume thats the logic anyway

 

 

 

I know what you mean, but even if you added the 2.5% on fuel to that on some foods. Even if everything you bought in a weeks shop had VAT. (ridiculous to think people don't buy most of their shop VAT free) that would only be  5% increase which would still mean the average shopping bill would be about £175 a week. That does seem somewhat unlikely.

[Kingfisher]

Gary Barlow likes tax loopholes, that's why he votes Tory. He'll perform a few shit songs for a children's ward, but he won't dip into his own pocket.

Gary Barlow OBE (for services to himself). Take that.

Gary Barlow likes tax loopholes, that's why he votes Tory. He'll perform a few shit songs for a children's ward, but he won't dip into his own pocket.

Gary Barlow OBE (for services to himself). Take that.

If the message that you are trying to convey is that only Tory voters participate in tax avoidance schemes, I would suggest that your view is even more blinkered than it normally appears.

I know a number of reasonably well off, potentially Tory voters, who were offered such schemes, which were perfectly legal, but turned them down for one reason, and one reason only. Because they were wrong.

In the end, no one should baulk at a 40% higher tax rate for earned income in this country, which worked up until the final squeals of the last Labour administration. You have to earn it to pay it.

You have drawn the wrong conclusions.

The message I'm tying to convey is we have tax loopholes and a mainly Tory coalition government who seem disinterested in closing them.

Therefore, if you benefit from tax loopholes, like Barlow, and don't want your tax avoidance methods closed, then a Tory vote would be a good one.

If like me you find the rich avoiding tax immoral, and greedy, vote for the Green Party as they seem serious about ending tax avoidance for the rich, something none of the three major parties are.

[chrisp65]

page 7 of National Fraud Authority 2012 Report

 

showing benefit fraud estimated at £1.6 billion and tax fraud at £14 billion

 

if only there was some way the government could put 9 or 10 times more effort into hunting down tax fraud

 

it's been the same under every lazy government to be fair to the current incompetents

 

the only difference here of course, is that Cameron has set a precedent of publicly condemning the likes of Jimmy Carr for tax loophole schemes so it would appear only right that at some point very soon he publicly names and shames Gary Barlow 

[thetrees]

Gary Barlow likes tax loopholes, that's why he votes Tory. He'll perform a few shit songs for a children's ward, but he won't dip into his own pocket.

Gary Barlow OBE (for services to himself). Take that.

Gary Barlow likes tax loopholes, that's why he votes Tory. He'll perform a few shit songs for a children's ward, but he won't dip into his own pocket.

Gary Barlow OBE (for services to himself). Take that.

If the message that you are trying to convey is that only Tory voters participate in tax avoidance schemes, I would suggest that your view is even more blinkered than it normally appears.

I know a number of reasonably well off, potentially Tory voters, who were offered such schemes, which were perfectly legal, but turned them down for one reason, and one reason only. Because they were wrong.

In the end, no one should baulk at a 40% higher tax rate for earned income in this country, which worked up until the final squeals of the last Labour administration. You have to earn it to pay it.

You have drawn the wrong conclusions.

The message I'm tying to convey is we have tax loopholes and a mainly Tory coalition government who seem disinterested in closing them.

Therefore, if you benefit from tax loopholes, like Barlow, and don't want your tax avoidance methods closed, then a Tory vote would be a good one.

If like me you find the rich avoiding tax immoral, and greedy, vote for the Green Party as they seem serious about ending tax avoidance for the rich, something none of the three major parties are.

One thing that Gordon Brown was very good at was closing tax loopholes. Tax avoidance schemes were available under the last government as they are this. The morality of them, as I alluded to in my posting, is highly questionable.

In the example that you cite, if a Tory vote is a 'good one' then why is a government department pursuing the individual in question for avoided tax?

As for your suggestion, and I haven't read up on them, but I would imagine that the Green Party view someone who earns more than £50k a year as 'rich', so I am unlikely to be seduced. Mega rich people hire accountants to reduce their tax bill, so the only people to hit are PAYE, which is why any further attempt to further persecute higher earning 'workers' would be flawed. But it will happen.

[Kingfisher]

Why are they perusing Barlow now? Why didn't they close the stable door?

Labour and the Tory led coalition like to look like they're cracking down on tax avoidance, but the reality is they're not.

Edit - some reading on Green policy for those who might be interested.

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/17-03-2011-tax-evasion-bill-parliament.html

Edited May 11, 2014 by Kingfisher

[Davkaus]

You make it sound like it's easy to close the staple door, when there are thousands of companies paying accountants and legal teams to keep shoving it back open.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Davkaus

[blandy]

 

 

Am I missing something here. If vat increased 2.5%. and that 2.5% increase amount to £450 a year. Doesn't that equate to an average annual shopping bill of £18000 or a weekly bill of about £350. We don't spend anywhere near that, you lot must all be rich.

VAT increased on fuel, fuel rise affects every good, most goods increased in price as a result of VAT increase whether zero rated or not which the peas in a pod line apart its perfectly allowable for the fruit and veg to be in picture. This also means it isn't just 2.5% rise

I presume thats the logic anyway

 

 

 

I know what you mean, but even if you added the 2.5% on fuel to that on some foods. Even if everything you bought in a weeks shop had VAT. (ridiculous to think people don't buy most of their shop VAT free) that would only be  5% increase which would still mean the average shopping bill would be about £175 a week. That does seem somewhat unlikely.

 

Right logic, terrible maths. the effect of  2.5% extra on fuel isn't equivalent to another 2.5% on the price of a carrot. The price of the carrot from the shop is raw material plus profit and costs and vat -  say 10p total, of which the extra 2.5% vat is 2.5p. The transport costs per carrot might be 1p, including pre vat increase in fuel, or 1.25p with the extra 2.5% on fuel vat. so the extra fuel vat is 0.25p in the example - making the carrot 10.25p as against the original 7.5p, so the overall effect of the extra vat is 2.75% in this example.

As the value of the item increases, the transport fuel costs make up a generally smaller percentage, still. (though for huge items it wil be more).

 

The add is rubbish for all kinds of reasons. it talks in the picture about the vat on your supermarket bill. As you say it doesn't add up. The pitcutre shows non vat-rated items. again a mistake. It could have been done a lot less amateurishly. it's garbage, frankly.

[blandy]

Tax avoidance schemes were available under the last government as they are this. The morality of them, as I alluded to in my posting, is highly questionable.

I wonder about this morality thing, with tax. It's become a kind of stick with which to avoid a "problem" - it blames the Co. or individual for something quite legal - directing our anger at the wrong target.

Sure looked at from our "little people" perspective, it's hard to take that we pay income tax and vat and NI etc that makes up a huge chunkof our income - 30 or 40% or so. Meanwhile a company pays next to nowt on their money earnt in the UK. so on the face of it, "it ain't fair".

 

On the other hand, if any Gov't wants to introduce more morality or fairness into things, they can. Stop blaming the Co.s and change the law. It's a political get out and excuse for inaction.

 

I am totally infavour of these CO.s and individuals paying more tax, but not through appealing to their morality, or appealing to "little people" to direct anger at them. Just get on and change the law, where necessary with the EU and other countries.

[Kingfisher]

You make it sound like it's easy to close the staple door, when there are thousands of companies paying accountants and legal teams to keep shoving it back open.

No point trying then.

How much does it cost the people who actually pay tax to chase the avoiders? Only a fraction of the lost tax is ever recovered. If you're Barlow and Take That, a vote for the Labour Tories and the current Tories has been a very lucrative one. Government needs to be more proactive in getting to grips with this problem, but they don't want to...

[MakemineVanilla]

Labour and the Tory led coalition like to look like they're cracking down on tax avoidance, but the reality is they're not.

 

 

True.

 

There was a piece in yesterday's Times about how Amazon only paid £10m on sales of £3.4bn.

 

There's a lot of fuss about the Barlow case but his failed attempt to avoid tax seems far more understandable than the sweetheart deals which HMRC annually hand to big corporations.

 

After all, no one expected Barlow's career to last any where near as long as it has done. 

 

While they continue to chase individuals while ignoring big business, we can only assume that corruption is the only reason.

[bickster]

...would still mean the average shopping bill would be about £175 a week. That does seem somewhat unlikely.

I easily spend that amount a week for a family of three

[villaajax]

 

...would still mean the average shopping bill would be about £175 a week. That does seem somewhat unlikely.

I easily spend that amount a week for a family of three

 

 

Cut down on the caviare and lobster

[blandy]

 

...would still mean the average shopping bill would be about £175 a week. That does seem somewhat unlikely.

I easily spend that amount a week for a family of three

 

Aye, but Col's maths was wrong. the vat on fuel doesn't add 2.5% to a supermarket bill on top of the other 2.5% for vat on no fresh food items. That would only be the case if the costs to the supermarket of moving the goods around was the same as the actual value of the goods themselves, and it's clearly nothing like.

[villaajax]

Are you guys forgetting that VAT has been raised from 17.5% to 20%?

[MakemineVanilla]

 

...would still mean the average shopping bill would be about £175 a week. That does seem somewhat unlikely.

I easily spend that amount a week for a family of three

 

 

The claim has to be read carefully.

 

They use the word 'average' not 'mean' and with the average household (2 adults and 2 children) income of £58k across all deciles, then the figure seems reasonable.

 

Like all political propaganda, it is assumed that it will just hook people's emotions and they will make no effort to unpack the claim itself.

 

It will certainly surprise the single people on here that if they earn £39800, and there will be quite a few, they belong to the top 20% earners.

 

So definitely amongst the fat cats and would probably be considered by some Lefties, as deserving heavy taxation to help poor 'hard-working families'.