asperity Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 As a matter of interest, where did you find the £72 Billion figure Wolfie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Actually I did exaggerate a little bit because this site only reports a loss of £73.4 billion http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-tax-gap-widens-austerity-lack-avoidance-law-1466606 However the estimate is for a loss of £100+ billion by 2018 if the government don't take action. Edited: My mistake I thought I had initially put £75 billion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 It's you who's dreaming Obs. HMRC's own figures - supported by the National Audit Office - show that 90% of all income tax is PAID by the highest earning 10% of the population. The same 10% of the population who place the lowest burden of all on tax funded services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 I think your thinking of the top 10% of the 90% Ink ; who actually will be paying their dues. The top 10% who own the 90%, the really really rich will have banked their ill gotten gains in off shore accounts, out of reach of HMRC, and the rest of their assets will employ every legal loophole going to reduce their net payments to around 10%. In the words of Gerald Nabarro ex-Tory MP; you can get justice, if you can afford it ! The nearest this country has ever got to a fair re-distribution of wealth was from 1945 to 1979; since then, the wealth gap has widened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Considering that we are all in it together, the only people who haven't suffered during 5 years of austerity are the rich, who have actually become richer. If the National minimum wage had kept pace with the FTSE 100 CEO salaries since 1999 it would now be £19 per hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 I'm not saying you're wrong Wolfie but I would treat any information coming from Tax Research LLP, which that article was drawing from, with suspicion as they have their own agenda as far as tax business goes. Just saying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 I suspect that what ever link I had put up you would have questioned it. I could have chosen half a dozen all saying the same thing, some were as high as £120 billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Might help also, if they increased super-tax over say 100k pa to 60%, and over £1mill pa to 90%; as a starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 I'm not saying the figures are wrong per se, but they are statistical figures which can be manipulated to give the result you want. For example the little graphic you put up about the amount of benefit fraud against the amount of tax evasion - well obviously the amount involved in tax evasion must be far in excess of that of benefit fraud because there is a vastly larger amount collected in tax than is paid out in benefits. If there wasn't we would certainly be up to our necks in it! But thats statistics for you. Perhaps if the PTB were to simplify the tax system there wouldn't be so many loopholes for the unscrupulous to use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 - well obviously the amount involved in tax evasion must be far in excess of that of benefit fraud because there is a vastly larger amount collected in tax than is paid out in benefits. Correct, so you would expect a bigger effort to recoup the taxes rather than the fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Tax fraud can be seen as money we never had and so are less likely to miss it.... benefit fraud is money we have had and money that has been removed unlawfully Now does the graphic above purely deal with evasion or avoidance as well I wonder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 What's rather amusing at the moment is, despite the deficit not being significantly reduced, despite the remaining commitment to Gov expenditure; the Parties are now engaged in a pre-election bidding war, promising all sorts of spending initiatives. Meanwhile, the tax revenues required to pay for all this are dwindling, mainly due to our lower wage economy. So, the politicians really need to make their minds up; either full on austerity with savage cuts to public services OR a radical approach to wealth re-distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Might help also, if they increased super-tax over say 100k pa to 60%, and over £1mill pa to 90%; as a starter. And how would that help if, as you say, the rich are all evading tax altogether? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Maybe the EU will bail us out for a few hundred billion.... Of course that will never happen when they are more interested in funding motorways in French colonies in the Indian Ocean! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10823040/EU-elections-2014-What-has-the-European-Union-done-for-us.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Errm no Ink; that would just be a starter, to rake in cash from the celebs who currently only pay under 50% on obscene levels of payments; the really really rich would require a much more complex strategy altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Same old, same old Obs. It didn't work in the sixties/seventies. Won't work now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Well it actually did work Asp to a point; the 60s/70s being the period in our history when the wealth gap was at it's narrowest - since then it's widened. (all covered in the CH4 prog "how rich are you"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 So a few hundred celebrities are going to bail out the country? This I gotta see!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 Well it seems that 650 MP's can't manage it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 A bit more than a few hundred Baz; football & other sports stars, TV stars (believe Jeremy Clarkson pulls £16million per series); CEOs etc etc; even lottery winners ! As I said, just a start. ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 Lottery winners Obs? Where would you draw the line? A prize of £1Million? £1Thousand? £100? £10? £2.50? Don't go giving the thieves ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 Proportional Asp. Those "thieves" need the cash for all the promises they're now giving out ! Which means increasing taxes OR cutting services OR increasing borrowing - take your pick ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 The "wealth gap" may have been smaller in the 70's - but as I remember it that was because EVERYONE was brassic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 If you mean "everyone" had a home, with rents they could afford; had no probs getting jobs in local industries; had public transport and energy they could afford; and were beginning to take a regular holiday in the Med; and buying cars and TV sets (albeit Japanese) - then your right ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 Obs.... just seen an interview with a guy from Savills estate agents who have branches around the country and predominantly in London and South East. He was saying that the current levels of Stamp Duty last year in Chelsea & Kensington generated over £54,000,000.00 for the treasury..... more than Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Yorkshire and the Humber (and another county that I can't remember) put together....... or would you prefer Labours crack-pot idea of taxing high value properties year on year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.