35bn tax deficit

[VFR]

So to summarize its organized by crooks & run by crooks to the benefit of crooks? (Legalized crooks of course).    🤨

[Phil xxkr]

8 hours ago, LenT said:

While that may be broadly true, the top 1% of earners pay about 28% of the total UK tax income.  The top 50% of earners account for about 90%.  So it would appear that the people who are making the most money are already contributing the most in taxable income.  

Seems fair enough to me.

And 42% contribute nothing! How is that fair? 

[Phil xxkr]

9 hours ago, Moleman said:

I only answered your question, Who benefits - they do. 😁

The poor may or may not have improved their position, but the rich (top 1%) have certainly become richer and they keep getting richer. Those in the middle (most of us) have certainly seen a loss since 2008.

The poor have improved their position-fact. Some rich people have got richer - fact. So what? This divisive talk does no one any good. I see FB shares dropped $220 Billion in the other day and I didn't hear a lot of cheering from the sidelines. Had it gone the other way of course it's clearly because they are crooks. At the same time Jeff Bezos increased his wealth by $17 bn through share price appreciation and if you owned amazon stock the same percentage applies. But your point about what used to be called "the middle class" is spot-on. That's because your contribution is becoming less well-defined through technological changes and your money is needed to support the 42% 

[Moleman]

1 hour ago, Phil xxkr said:

The poor have improved their position-fact. Some rich people have got richer - fact. So what? This divisive talk does no one any good. I see FB shares dropped $220 Billion in the other day and I didn't hear a lot of cheering from the sidelines. Had it gone the other way of course it's clearly because they are crooks. At the same time Jeff Bezos increased his wealth by $17 bn through share price appreciation and if you owned amazon stock the same percentage applies. But your point about what used to be called "the middle class" is spot-on. That's because your contribution is becoming less well-defined through technological changes and your money is needed to support the 42% 

What divisive talk I have been agreeing with you. Some major change in incomes and ability to spend has been occurring yet Governments have sought to hide this as much as possible.

[VFR]

17 hours ago, Shahpor said:

Taxation into poverty 😞

I am in a fortunate position to be able to pay for the additional costs, but when you have average familys sitting in the cold because they cannot afford to heat their house, something is seriously wrong.  Next it will be, can I afford to leave the house today if pay per mile is introduced...

I read today that analysts are predicting that when the energy cap is reviewed in 6 months that it will go up by another £400 per year!

Since everyone appears to agree that this isn't a short term fluctuation, at what point does it become a big enough problem that the government actually does something other than raise taxes even higher?  They can obviously afford to with things like the write off of £8.7bn in the latest debacle.  🙄

Agree & that is what I was referring to with my “crooks” comment.

 

[Malc]

16 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

Percentage of the pump price that is duty, VAT & environmental taxes/fees

56.62%

55.73%

Petrol first,

OMG sorry, I got my figures wrong again, I hadn't taken account of the " other taxes " you mention

That takes the uplift from the miserly 125% I thought to actually           130%  tax on every litre we pop into our cars guys

Malc

[Malc]

and as for taxation in general, well, I won't dwell on that issue ......  you all seem to have well reasoned views and i cannot dispute any ...  I'm just a mere mortal with a Lexus and comparatively " rich " in money terms to the great majority of the world population .....  I eat, sleep and enjoy my life as best as i am able ..  I can want for no more !

Malc

 

[ganzoom]

13 hours ago, doog442 said:

Anyone with any substantial cash savings really should look at investing. Interest rates are also stupidly low compared to what some of us were used to. There are 10 year fixed mortgage rates available for 1.9% for example. 

We secured an extra £200k of borrowing for under 1.5% fixed for 7 years to fund an extension to the house. Am now looking to see if we can borrow even more. The maths makes it a no brainer to release equity on property if you can use the money on something else.

With inflation projected to hit 7%, a substantial of mortgage debt will essentially be eroded away with zero action.

I've never liked debt, but the current financial situation is bizarre. Been able to lock in borrowing rates at sub 1.5% whilst inflation is heading close to double figures is as close to 'free money' as it gets.

It cannot last forever though, so if you can don't look a gift horse in the mouth!!

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, Moleman said:

What divisive talk I have been agreeing with you. Some major change in incomes and ability to spend has been occurring yet Governments have sought to hide this as much as possible.

Maurice,my dear old thing 😊 it wasn't personally directed it was a general comment about a lot of people's preoccupation with the amount certain people have with the sub-text of - now what can we do to take it off them? And once that narrative takes hold who will decide what actually is a lot of money? With the average salary at say 28k I suspect that the number will be a lot lower than you think. For most people on here with grey hair, two cars, foreign holidays, own house maybe 2, readily accessible savings etc you get my drift🤔

[Moleman]

5 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Maurice,my dear old thing 😊 it wasn't personally directed it was a general comment about a lot of people's preoccupation with the amount certain people have with the sub-text of - now what can we do to take it off them? And once that narrative takes hold who will decide what actually is a lot of money? With the average salary at say 28k I suspect that the number will be a lot lower than you think. For most people on here with grey hair, two cars, foreign holidays, own house maybe 2, readily accessible savings etc you get my drift🤔

Stop it. I keep agreeing with you. 😁

[Phil xxkr]

19 hours ago, Shahpor said:

Taxation into poverty 😞

I am in a fortunate position to be able to pay for the additional costs, but when you have average familys sitting in the cold because they cannot afford to heat their house, something is seriously wrong.  Next it will be, can I afford to leave the house today if pay per mile is introduced...

I read today that analysts are predicting that when the energy cap is reviewed in 6 months that it will go up by another £400 per year!

Since everyone appears to agree that this isn't a short term fluctuation, at what point does it become a big enough problem that the government actually does something other than raise taxes even higher?  They can obviously afford to with things like the write off of £8.7bn in the latest debacle.  🙄

It's obviously climate warming Shahpor 😂. I notice we are drifting closer to politicians stating, being warm is a person's "right", alongside the other myriad of entitlements. Gov. UK even have a Web page called Browse Benefits as if you were looking for your next new must have stuff. Quite rightly you ask "when are you going to do something other than raise tax" and quite frankly this administration is as socialist as any other consequently knows no other way. 

[Phil xxkr]

9 minutes ago, Moleman said:

Stop it. I keep agreeing with you. 😁

😂👍

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, ganzoom said:

We secured an extra £200k of borrowing for under 1.5% fixed for 7 years to fund an extension to the house. Am now looking to see if we can borrow even more. The maths makes it a no brainer to release equity on property if you can use the money on something else.

With inflation projected to hit 7%, a substantial of mortgage debt will essentially be eroded away with zero action.

I've never liked debt, but the current financial situation is bizarre. Been able to lock in borrowing rates at sub 1.5% whilst inflation is heading close to double figures is as close to 'free money' as it gets.

It cannot last forever though, so if you can don't look a gift horse in the mouth!!

Your loan was predicated on an LTV of "x", should property price decline during the next seven years might you be in breach of your T's & C's? 

[Linas.P]

15 hours ago, LenT said:

While that may be broadly true, the top 1% of earners pay about 28% of the total UK tax income.  The top 50% of earners account for about 90%.  So it would appear that the people who are making the most money are already contributing the most in taxable income.  

Seems fair enough to me.

That is on individual level, but does not include corporations.  I think I agree with Philip here - 42% of people are burden, so we can't make it work before we fin the ways to empower 42% to contribute at least something, that is definitely one way to make system fairer for everyone. And I am not saying just cut all benefits, but we need to make sure that working will always remains better option than sitting on the dole.

Other issue - we fundamentally tax people incorrectly (and most countries do as well). We tax people on their income, not on their wealth. So we disincentivising earners and incentivising hoarders - as such it is possible to be high earner, but comparably poor (say earn £100k/year and being largely unable to buy home, with exception of taking mortgage for 35 years) and it is possible to just own land and houses for £8 million and pay no taxes at all. My favourite bad guys are for example are Grosvenor family - estate worth £35billion, pays **** all taxes. And what is even more annoying - where they got this estate? Have they build business empire, created some amazing technology? No Hugh Grosvenor was simply given the land by Queen, just because... basically it was public property which was given to private owner and that is how Grosvenor family is rich.. and they don't pay taxes either. 

The modern equivalent would be something like Boris giving £35billion worth of public property to some Tory party member... it would be outrageous... ohhh wait... government handled £37bn to failed Track&Trace programme which mostly benefited friends and associates of Tory party and their private consultancies- Dido Harding at the front of it. Has anyone lost the job - no, gone to jail - no, faced any sorts of consequences - no! And we continue to try to justify taxing motorists until it hurts and beyond, despite wasting more money on stupid project which fails.

[Las Palmas]

We have lost. We are the losers.

 

If we take a walk, they'll tax our feet.

 

Wise words from Beatles. More or less.

[Bluemarlin]

15 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I think I agree with Philip here - 42% of people are burden, so we can't make it work before we fin the ways to empower 42% to contribute at least something, that is definitely one way to make system fairer for everyone. And I am not saying just cut all benefits, but we need to make sure that working will always remains better option than sitting on the dole.

That would be an assumption at best, and a wildly inaccurate one at worst, Linas. Big numbers look great when trying to make a point, but the point doesn't always stand once you look a little closer at those numbers.

The fact that 42% pay no income tax doesn't automatically mean that they're a burden and don't contribute. All it means is that 42% of the population earn less than £12.5k a year. They also contribute by paying taxes on the goods and services they buy. To be honest though, the shocking part isn't that 42% are thought to be getting away with something unfairly, but that 42% of the population are living on less than £12.5k a year. Additionally, only a small percentage are unemployed and on the dole, as that 42% percent includes stay at home parents, carers, retirees, and part time workers, as well as the husbands, wives, partners, adult children of business owners, who are "employed" at just below the tax threshold.

Yes, working is always a better option than being on the dole, but that doesn't account for why 42% don't pay income tax, and doesn't mean that 42% of people are a burden.

[Linas.P]

4 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

That would be an assumption at best, and a wildly inaccurate one at worst, Linas. Big numbers look great when trying to make a point, but the point doesn't always stand once you look a little closer at those numbers.

The fact that 42% pay no income tax doesn't automatically mean that they're a burden and don't contribute. All it means is that 42% of the population earn less than £12.5k a year. They also contribute by paying taxes on the goods and services they buy. To be honest though, the shocking part isn't that 42% are thought to be getting away with something unfairly, but that 42% of the population are living on less than £12.5k a year. Additionally, only a small percentage are unemployed and on the dole, as that 42% percent includes stay at home parents, carers, retirees, and part time workers, as well as the husbands, wives, partners, adult children of business owners, who are "employed" at just below the tax threshold.

Yes, working is always a better option than being on the dole, but that doesn't account for why 42% don't pay income tax, and doesn't mean that 42% of people are a burden.

I agree that not all of 42% are burden, that is correct and I am just quoting the number provided without really knowing the detail, so it relies on original post being accurate. For example I don't know if 42% includes all people i.e. kids or elderly who have retired... or it only includes working age people who can work, but for some reason doesn't, or don't earn as much as threshold - in which case it is different story altogether.

That said I still think that there are too many people who rely on benefits rather than trying to earn their living. And to say that working is always better than not working isn't true either. When I was studying I work as a waiter and although this does not quality as I was studying at the time, I just realised it doesn't make sense to work at that job. I think if I would have worked full time it could have earned £14-18k a year before tax, before paying expenses for travel, before paying for my own uniform and it's maintenance, before paying other expenses of being employed - like getting the coffee and sandwich during break... etc. All in all it could have lived better from unemployment benefits than working actually hard job (sometimes standing for 10-12 hours and walking upwards to 50-80k steps per shift). I may need to look at exact numbers again as I don't exactly remember ranges of when an where one would "break-even", but it was along the lines that if one ears between 12-20k a year, it is better to live on benefits, 20-25k is about the same, or if it is family (or single woman) with kids actually better not to work and only over 25k is when one really starts making more than they could get from benefits.

[Las Palmas]

42% is just a number and most of these are not able to pay much anyway.

2 - 5% are other numbers and maybe those 5% are the real burden. They have big companies, make enormous amount of profit and pay no tax because of unfair rules accepted by us.

[Bluemarlin]

I can't say how many choose to live on benefits rather than work, but I agree that people should be encouraged to  work rather than receive benefits. 

You're also right that at certain levels it makes better financial sense for some not to work That's a flaw in the system though, and thus the poor man's version of tax avoidance, legal but not ideal.

[Phil xxkr]

18 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

That would be an assumption at best, and a wildly inaccurate one at worst, Linas. Big numbers look great when trying to make a point, but the point doesn't always stand once you look a little closer at those numbers.

The fact that 42% pay no income tax doesn't automatically mean that they're a burden and don't contribute. All it means is that 42% of the population earn less than £12.5k a year. They also contribute by paying taxes on the goods and services they buy. To be honest though, the shocking part isn't that 42% are thought to be getting away with something unfairly, but that 42% of the population are living on less than £12.5k a year. Additionally, only a small percentage are unemployed and on the dole, as that 42% percent includes stay at home parents, carers, retirees, and part time workers, as well as the husbands, wives, partners, adult children of business owners, who are "employed" at just below the tax threshold.

Yes, working is always a better option than being on the dole, but that doesn't account for why 42% don't pay income tax, and doesn't mean that 42% of people are a burden.

Bill, even a cursory Google will show these figures hold up. The IFS for example state out of the 54 million Adults in the UK 31 million pay income tax. Big numbers are big because the harsh reality is big, a "small" 4% unemployment rate represents 1.4 million people being supported. The Welfare budget, excluding pensions, is more than £200 Billion in fact not far off the Income tax take or Health budget. Now if you don't think that's some form of burden on the system I don't know what is? And 12.5k represents the tax free allowance not wage rates as this would be below the minimum wage. But for the low paid they attract additional benefits in all forms, for example free boiler installation which you would VAT on ordinarily. So the argument of them paying tax on goods or services doesn't hold up to closer examination as it comes from taxed income in the first place and as a benefit attracts no tax 

[Malc]

19 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

but that doesn't account for why 42% don't pay income tax, and doesn't mean that 42% of people are a burden.

NOW guys I would like to get this across and for the Govt to do summat about it 

Why is it that prisoners enjoy free food, hotel/hostel accommodation, heating lighting etc ,  free exercise opportunities and hobbies ....  tuition etc when many could have their assets seized, or at least requisitioned to help pay for their stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure ...........  not mine for sure  ...pleasure that is

When they have served their sentence then just take whatever it's cost US the taxpayer in reimbursement

I'm presuming this isn't the case already ?  does anyone know ......  Proceeds of Crime are taken anyway BUT this is on another level I'm thinking 

Thoughts please ...............

Malc

[Phil xxkr]

17 minutes ago, Malc said:

NOW guys I would like to get this across and for the Govt to do summat about it 

Why is it that prisoners enjoy free food, hotel/hostel accommodation, heating lighting etc ,  free exercise opportunities and hobbies ....  tuition etc when many could have their assets seized, or at least requisitioned to help pay for their stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure ...........  not mine for sure  ...pleasure that is

When they have served their sentence then just take whatever it's cost US the taxpayer in reimbursement

I'm presuming this isn't the case already ?  does anyone know ......  Proceeds of Crime are taken anyway BUT this is on another level I'm thinking 

Thoughts please ...............

Malc

If you ever meet a politician Malc ask this one question ; in the last five years how many guests of HMP have died from hypothermia? 🤔. Or the last ten, or ever for that matter 

[Malc]

1 minute ago, Phil xxkr said:

If you ever meet a politician Malc ask this one question

do you really think any politician would know the answer ......  I doubt any HMP Governor would either, tucked up in his ( or her ) cosy office with a cuppa brought in by the PA .....  I'm supposing Norman Stanley Fletcher gets his bowl of Porridge every day still 

Malc

[Bluemarlin]

2 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

Bill, even a cursory Google will show these figures hold up. The IFS for example state out of the 54 million Adults in the UK 31 million pay income tax. Big numbers are big because the harsh reality is big, a "small" 4% unemployment rate represents 1.4 million people being supported. The Welfare budget, excluding pensions, is more than £200 Billion in fact not far off the Income tax take or Health budget. Now if you don't think that's some form of burden on the system I don't know what is? And 12.5k represents the tax free allowance not wage rates as this would be below the minimum wage. But for the low paid they attract additional benefits in all forms, for example free boiler installation which you would VAT on ordinarily. So the argument of them paying tax on goods or services doesn't hold up to closer examination as it comes from taxed income in the first place and as a benefit attracts no tax 

I didn't say the 42% number isn't real Phil, just that it doesn't mean that 42% are a burden, which was the claim.

£12.5k is not below minimum wage for a part time worker, so I'm not sure what you mean about low earners paying no other taxes as, regardless of income, they pay vat and duties on many/most things they buy. Not everyone claims benefits, or all that they're allowed to. However yes, welfare expenditure is a burden on the economy, but no more so than healthcare, policing, defence, infrastructure etc.

The fact is that we have chosen a society that collects taxes to provide for all these things, and the basic principles are unlikely to be changed by any government. For the most part it's a good thing, but the mechanics of the system are such that people will find ways to exploit it for their own benefit. At the bottom end that means some people might claim benefits unfairly, and at the top end people and businesses may avoid paying taxes unfairly. Both may be acting legally, but both are an unwelcome burden. Mostly though, rich or poor, people try to play the hand they've been dealt fairly.

My main point being that the poorest members of society aren't the villains here, as was being implied, any more than corporations are, as others have implied. The system is flawed, but clearly not enough for governments to do anything about it. In fact it's worth noting that welfare expenditure is a deliberate part of the economic system we operate, which requires a certain amount of unemployment in order to function efficiently.

 

[Linas.P]

59 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

The system is flawed, but clearly not enough for governments to do anything about it.

I think this is probably key point of discussion here - is the system flawed enough that goverment should do something about it?

I think it is flawed enough and was like that for way too long. When it comes to corporations not paying their due, then I know the answer why government would not be wiling to do anything about it - there is army of lobbyist and many MPs have conflict of interest because they have business association or their families has, so they won't be removing any tax loopholes, in fact they may be adding more. Looking at changes to tax code, the only thing they did was to make "barrier of entry" higher for tax avoidance. Simply said if in the past somebody earning £200k/year would have been able to avoid tax and corporation enring £1m, then they made sure that cost (barrier) of entry just doesn't make sense to avoid paying taxes. However if anything for somebody earning £1m/year or for corp with £10m/year it actually became easier and there various schemes...

If you ask why that is - they don't want that tax avoidance would be obvious on the surface, but they really really want for the loopholes to exist, because £ billion business demands this via lobby, or even direct association. I consider this corruption, but as long as it is called "lobby" it is apparently legal.

I don't have an answer why they fail to make rules fairer for poor - perhaps poor = stupid = easy votes? Universal credit meant to be that update, but for anyone who seen it... I am sure they don't want to touch it even with barge pole - system is a mess, no more effective and just causes more mistakes - poor being left to starve and freeze, whist there is still army of people using various loopholes to exploit it. 

As well just to be clear - I didn't say that people on the dole are the only burden, or that all 42% are burden, same as you I think burden is on both ends. What is kind of annoying that if you are somewhere in the middle - a fair person, working hard and building your life, then you are exploited from both ends.