Inequality

[Sha]

Any decrease in tax collected will only end up having to be paid out by the rest of the population on higher rates.

 

No it won't because the reduction in tax collected will be offset by a reduction in benefits paid out. What I have suggested in an earlier post is a simplification of the tax and benefits system and nothing more, whereby instead of the daft system that we have now where those on modest incomes pay tax and then to make up their income they claim benefits, I am suggesting that they don't pay tax in the first place, but neither do they claim benefits or if they do they are at a greatly reduced level.

 

Your most recent post deals with wealth redistribution, which alas would not work in the way that you advocate.

 

 

What would be the use of just a simplification of the tax and benefits system? It wouldn't really do much other than create unemployment of civil service workers.

 

Paul quotes a "reduction in tax collected will be offset by a reduction in benefits paid out"

Yes,...so in effect the general tax payer would still be picking up the tab because the Fat Cats are not paying wages sufficient for people to live on!

So what would be the point of superficial tinkering which didn't really achieve anything?

The problem that really needs to be addressed is that we have a system whereby 95% of the population is subsidising the 5% mega rich.

Yes,my post did deal with wealth distribution, without which most of the present days socio-economic problems will never be solved.

[Paul Kennedy]

But one of the reasons that I think the system needs simplifying, is that I regard it as demeaning for a person doing a good days work, on modest wages, to be taxed and then have to go with what is in effect a begging bowl to Government, to have their income topped up, an income that should never have been taxed in the first place. Such a process, in my opinion, shows a lack of respect for the feelings of the individual, it really does. In a decent society we should not be making them feel that they are a burden on society, nor should the system be allowed to batter their pride...or what they have left of it.

 

Redistribution of wealth, I think, is a matter for another topic.....and a very worthy one it would be as well.

[Dizzy]

How much does an accountant charge for doing your tax (if you don't mind me asking)?

 

Dont mind at all.

 

For our yearly accounts and corporation tax calculation it's approx ?1200+ a year. That is for them being handed all the info in neat files with spreadsheets showing all monthly figures and calculated corp tax etc etc. They just have to extract our figures and type it up in a 'legal' type document as being a Ltd Comapny we have to have accounts done by a chartered accountant.

 

PAYE for employer/employees we do ourselves and submit/pay on line to HMRC as it's free that way although a pain in the ****. Accountant wanted in excess of and additional ?50 a month to do it

 

Self Assessment again we do ourselves as accountant wanted a 'reduced'?? rate of ?120 to do it for us based on exact figures being provided for submission

 

Other small businesses I work with and help out are also charged similar amounts so I guess it's pretty standard

 

Don't know what they must charge for larger companies though.

[asperity]

Thanks for that Dizzy. Just curious

[Dizzy]

No probs are you thinking of changing your job

[asperity]

Not a chance! I'm lucky to be doing what I wanted to do when I was in primary school

[Dizzy]

You must be one of only a very few there Asp

 

...I've only just figured out what job I really want to do but I've grow up now (well sort of) so it's a bit late now

[LymmParent]

What's the job, Dis? Unless it's ballerina or heptathlete, there's probably some way to get there. My Mum wanted to be a teacher, and is now hoping they do away with compulsory retirement so she can carry on as a teaching assistant. Never really too late, you know....

[Paul Kennedy]

as being a Ltd Comapny we have to have accounts done by a chartered accountant.

 

 

Subject to the size of the company, that is not correct. Typically if the company meets 2 of the following conditions there is not a statutory requirement ( Companies Act 2006) to have its accounts "done by a chartered accountant"

 

Turnover not more than ?5.6 million

 

Balance sheet not more than ?2.8 million

 

Not more than 50 employees

[Dizzy]

Thats the problem Paul our turnover way exceeds the figure

 

 

 

.... I WISH

 

Bugger do you mean we could have been using a cheap little back street accountant after all Oooh best not tell Mr Dizzy We've been conned there eh

[Bazj]

First few years we had to have chartered accountants doing our accounts, but since they changed the limits we have had a really good Geordie bloke doing ours!!

 

Fraction of the cost!

[observer]

Again a fairly simple solution: tax the rich more (back to 84% super tax. which existed prior to Maggie), identify and remove all tax loopholes, seqestrate any funds being transfered to off shore accounts, restrict emigration until they've paid back for any education and training they've received - that should redress the balance. At the other end of the spectrum, don't tax folk on less than ?20k pa, and subsidise essentials, like care, housing, heating and transport, rather than giving cash to be spent on fags and booze. Sorted! btw the evidence points to more equal societies as being more content and at peace with themselves!

[asperity]

Stop people leaving the country? As per USSR? How very modern and libertarian of you Obs! Go back to sleep mate

[observer]

No ASP: THEY can leave (and good riddence); as long as their money stays here: unlike the Yeltsin regime, which permitted the Oligarchs to asset strip a Nation, then use the funds robbed from the Soviet people to buy footy clubs over here!

[Paul Kennedy]

Thats the problem Paul our turnover way exceeds the figure

 

 

 

.... I WISH

 

Bugger do you mean we could have been using a cheap little back street accountant after all Oooh best not tell Mr Dizzy We've been conned there eh

 

With a bit of training, you or Mr Dizzy could do them, they run courses at the Collegiate.

 

PS My invoice for business advice is in the post .

[asperity]

No ASP: THEY can leave (and good riddence); as long as their money stays here: unlike the Yeltsin regime, which permitted the Oligarchs to asset strip a Nation, then use the funds robbed from the Soviet people to buy footy clubs over here!

 

Who are THEY?? We're back to the argument you keep side-stepping. Who is the undeserving rich and who are the deserving poor, where do you draw the line and who decides?

[Paul Kennedy]

Again a fairly simple solution: tax the rich more (back to 84% super tax. which existed prior to Maggie), identify and remove all tax loopholes, seqestrate any funds being transfered to off shore accounts, restrict emigration until they've paid back for any education and training they've received - that should redress the balance. At the other end of the spectrum, don't tax folk on less than ?20k pa, and subsidise essentials, like care, housing, heating and transport, rather than giving cash to be spent on fags and booze. Sorted! btw the evidence points to more equal societies as being more content and at peace with themselves!

 

As I recall it was 83% on incomes over ?20,000 on top of which there was a 15% surcharge on so called "unearned" income, giving a total potential tax rate of 98%. I think it was from about 1973/4 until as you say the Conservatives came to power in 1979.

[asperity]

Here you go Obs, is this one of the "super rich" you want to tax til the pips squeak?

 

 

[/i]Our company has expanded rapidly over the last four years now employing one hundred and thirty people in the North West of England. We have achieved this despite Gordon Brown and most certainly not because of him. It makes my flesh creep when he claims credit for our job creation. The capital that I have built throughout my life was invested in our company four years ago. We sold our house and moved into rented accommodation to provide the initial investment which we geared up with high street bank debt. HBOS as it happened; the company has always been able to service its debt and has strong cash flows. But in September 2008 when we sought borrowings to open a third site creating thirty new jobs the bank was unable to lend.

 

We didn?t let that stop us. I transferred my final salary pension fund, accrued through a lifetime of employment, into a self invested pension and bought shares in my company to fund the expansion. Later in 2009 we opened our fourth and fifth sites, we were once again able to borrow although we had to go to a different bank as HBOS is still not lending. We also had to pay 3.5% over base rather than the 2% we were paying before the banking crisis. So the reductions in interest rates have essentially gone to the banks that caused the crisis, to rebuild their balance sheets, rather than to the small businesses that create jobs.

 

Although the business had strong cash flow my wife and I took no drawings for the first three years living off the last of our savings, preferring instead to invest in expansion. Finally this year now the business has matured we planned to take the fruits of our labour in terms of a high salary. You see we need one; we want to buy our own house again and are of an age where a lengthy mortgage is not possible. We gave up our home and our pension funds to start this business. We have worked seven days a week, that?s not a complaint; we were building a business to provide a quality lifestyle for ourselves. I will be damned if I am going to give half of my very hard earned income to pay for this governments incompetence.

 

We have two adult sons who have worked hard in our business and have taken low salaries since start up. We now want to reward them for their support, should they too have to pay 50% tax if we now compensate them for the four years of subsistence wages they took to help us ensure a successful business startup? And when my wife and I pass on should they be forced to sell up to pay inheritance tax? I think the answer to both is no.[/i]

 

Of course we can always make it impossible for people like this to start businesses like this and then everyone can live on benefits provided by the government using taxes taken from..........woops there's nobody earning taxable income anymore because the government has killed the goose etc etc etc.

[observer]

Not "side stepping" anything Asp: the facts are that the wealth gap in this Country is wider now than 40 years ago. and I offered the self evident solution IE a redistributory taxation system - so not a question of "deserving" or "undeserving" - merely a question of equalisation (or at least a more equal society), which is what this Government talk about but have totally failed to do.

[Bazj]

but would you advocate taking it off people like the ones in Asps example who are obviously hardworking folks and then giving it to the poor because they haven't got as much either by accident or design?

 

Who do you think you are? Bloody Robin Hood?

 

It isn't right to take money off someone just to balance up the "fairness" figures Obs, some of these scrounging doley chavs haven't got an ounce of work in them and here's you advocating giving them even more AND by taking it off people who do want to work and better themselves. You must be mad

[asperity]

Of course you're side stepping the issue Obs. All you are setting out is a vision of an ideal world where everyone is equal and has the same as everyone else. Given that we don't live in an ideal world, what is your plan to convince those who work hard that they are only worth the same as those who can't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning? For example why would I accept the responsibility of being the ship's Master if I could get the same pay and benefits as the deck boy? I'll say it again, raise the tax threshold and stop the poor having to pay tax and going cap in hand to the government to get their money back in benefits. That's what is obscene, not the hard working paying themselves a high wage for their efforts.

[Bazj]

hmmmm Roger the deck boy..... it has a ring to it!

[byrdy]

Still searching for the golden rivet?

[asperity]

Modern ships don't have rivets any more, golden or otherwise

[observer]

Well for starters, your presuming that there is such a thing as absolute equality - which is patently not the case, as everyone is physically and mentally different, having different aptitudes and potential - imo a civilized society will, through education and training, add value to one's potential in order to make them an asset to the whole. Secondly, your presuming everyone is solely motivated by money as their incentive for work, which is patently not the case, as I've no doubt you wouldn't swop places with a deck hand even if he was paid the same rate, it's called job satisfaction. Niether am I opposed to the individual who sets up in an honest buisiness and is rewarded with an improved lifestyle. The question is one of excess: the differentials that exist within society are simply there to incentivise ambition - unfortunately where solely based on supply and demand these can become distorted, with the result that any cretin that can kick a ball round a pitch or sing a pop song becomes worth more than a surgeon or indeed a sea Captain! The abuse of differentials and incentives has been brought to the fore by the banking industry, with their astronomical bonus schemes - so imo it's quite reasonable for such greed to be countered by a redistibutory tax system. At the other end of the spectrum, I don't disagree with your suggestion that folk are taken out of the tax equation altogether, but would actually go further in suggesting that benefits should be in kind rather than cash: EG. child allowance - why not subsidise the requirements of child rearing, like school uniforms, kids clothing generally etc, rather than giving cash that can be spent on fags and booze? Why give cash to pensioners for winter fuel, when many, if not most don't really need it, rather than subsidising energy at source? So, a redistributory tax system is more about curbing exess and allowing common access to essential provision; rather than simply dividing up the cash.