O/T people on benefits

[frogmiller]

sorry to hear about your sister frog - hope she gets enough support to help her manage - I've also seen first hand what this type of event (brain haemorrhage) can do to people and it's heartbreaking

Thanks Saw, she needs to have a mechanical clamp put onto where the bleed was. At the time of the original operation they cauterized it.
She has too much time to think about things now but she's getting there.

[ragingpup]

I would like my tax to go on education and health. Not my extended family who have never lifted a finger .
If that's OK with you fair do,s.

Ok - I take your point.

But as others have pointed out on here, actual benefit cheats account for about 0.7% of the benefits total and therefore even if you stopped EVERY cheat you would only make a relatively small amount back into the public purse. Certainly nothing like the amount we could rake into the purse by clawing back tax evaders.

So taking in yours and Lasterman's (quite good actually) comparison of Dave (benefits cheat) and Chris (good earning, tax contributing and also tax avoiding) - we are left with a question: where would we like to go from here?

We could:

1. Ignore tax avoiders and nail benefit cheats. That would bring in a very small amount into the purse but certainly not enough to make any impact on what is required after years of austerity cuts

2. Nail tax avoiders AND nail benefit cheats. This would obviously raise a more substantial amount for the purse as even Lasterman by his own maths figures that one relatively moderate avoider in Chris is avoiding £250k of tax - a quarter of a million pounds from ONE moderately well off man. And bear in mind he is only being asked to pay a small amount more than you and I pay. We have no option of avoiding paying our due taxes, why are we so happy to let Chris off? Why are you so vehement that people like Dave are cheating you but Chris choosing to opt to pay less tax than you and me doesn't bother you?

Obviously 2) is the ONLY way that we can raise any useful revenue without further taxation being involved. 1) is obviously what the right wing press want us to think in that it keeps our focus away from the widespread and enormous avoidance practiced by the super rich (like their owners!).

But, let's say that we go for 1) and raise a small amount for the purse but leave 2) as it is saying "well done lads, you're paying in enough so we'll turn a blind eye to the avoidance.

If we choose 1) - how are we going to raise the extra revenues needed? Any ideas lads and lasses?

All I can think of is tax rises, and obviously these should not hit the more well off any more than the rest of us so how about we ALL pay a flat rate of 40%? Is that fair enough?

Or would you rather leave the higher bands as is and just add an extra 2% on everybody? Or 3% Or 5%

Tough decisions? Which ACTUAL direction would you like us to go from here Crash, Lasterman et al??

[Lasterman]

Ok - I take your point.

But as others have pointed out on here, actual benefit cheats account for about 0.7% of the benefits total and therefore even if you stopped EVERY cheat you would only make a relatively small amount back into the public purse. Certainly nothing like the amount we could rake into the purse by clawing back tax evaders.

So taking in yours and Lasterman's (quite good actually) comparison of Dave (benefits cheat) and Chris (good earning, tax contributing and also tax avoiding) - we are left with a question: where would we like to go from here?

We could:

1. Ignore tax avoiders and nail benefit cheats. That would bring in a very small amount into the purse but certainly not enough to make any impact on what is required after years of austerity cuts

2. Nail tax avoiders AND nail benefit cheats. This would obviously raise a more substantial amount for the purse as even Lasterman by his own maths figures that one relatively moderate avoider in Chris is avoiding £250k of tax - a quarter of a million pounds from ONE moderately well off man. And bear in mind he is only being asked to pay a small amount more than you and I pay. We have no option of avoiding paying our due taxes, why are we so happy to let Chris off? Why are you so vehement that people like Dave are cheating you but Chris choosing to opt to pay less tax than you and me doesn't bother you?

Obviously 2) is the ONLY way that we can raise any useful revenue without further taxation being involved. 1) is obviously what the right wing press want us to think in that it keeps our focus away from the widespread and enormous avoidance practiced by the super rich (like their owners!).

But, let's say that we go for 1) and raise a small amount for the purse but leave 2) as it is saying "well done lads, you're paying in enough so we'll turn a blind eye to the avoidance.

If we choose 1) - how are we going to raise the extra revenues needed? Any ideas lads and lasses?

All I can think of is tax rises, and obviously these should not hit the more well off any more than the rest of us so how about we ALL pay a flat rate of 40%? Is that fair enough?

Or would you rather leave the higher bands as is and just add an extra 2% on everybody? Or 3% Or 5%

Tough decisions? Which ACTUAL direction would you like us to go from here Crash, Lasterman et al??

If you're looking at this from a moral perspective, both Chris and Dave are not behaving well. My point is that people who say 'those at the top are the real villians' often overlook the fact that those people are often already contributing massively, as compared to those at the bottom who are contributing nothing. Had Chris sat on his backside like Dave, he'd also be contributing nothing, and in some eyes, be less of a villain for it. That doesn't make sense to me.

Someone made a point that anyone making a lot of money probably did it exploiting other people. My view is that's quite difficult to do when people are free to sell their labour for what it's worth, just about anywhere, but I'm sure we could argue about that all day.

So what do you do about this tax thing? Well I think you have to be a bit pragmatic, and the truth in 2017 is that people like Chris have the freedom to live and work anywhere they choose. That's what modern communications have allowed. So it might be better to get 20% of a million than 50% of nothing. I realise the temptation is to say 'well let them p*ss off then', but when they do, they take etheir money and their jobs with them. Nobody benefits from that - apart from Chris.

[ragingpup]

If you're looking at this from a moral perspective, both Chris and Dave are not behaving well. My point is that people who say 'those at the top are the real villians' often overlook the fact that those people are often already contributing massively, as compared to those at the bottom who are contributing nothing. Had Chris sat on his backside like Dave, he'd also be contributing nothing, and in some eyes, be less of a villain for it. That doesn't make sense to me.

Someone made a point that anyone making a lot of money probably did it exploiting other people. My view is that's quite difficult to do when people are free to sell their labour for what it's worth, just about anywhere, but I'm sure we could argue about that all day.

So what do you do about this tax thing? Well I think you have to be a bit pragmatic, and the truth in 2017 is that people like Chris have the freedom to live and work anywhere they choose. That's what modern communications have allowed. So it might be better to get 20% of a million than 50% of nothing. I realise the temptation is to say 'well let them p*ss off then', but when they do, they take etheir money and their jobs with them. Nobody benefits from that - apart from Chris.

So you think we should allow things to stay as they are? Effectively the wealthy and even the super wealthy effectively paying the same rate of tax, if not less, than the rest of us?

Fair enough - so that keeps the sustained existing pressure on public services and a big question for us who use the public services. Hence surely we will have to change the rates of tax if we are to improve services (appropriate for this week). Are you happy to pay more personally as you and I will surely have to do, whilst Chris and much wealthier even than he, continue to pay less than us?

[Lasterman]

So you think we should allow things to stay as they are? Effectively the wealthy and even the super wealthy effectively paying the same rate of tax, if not less, than the rest of us?

Fair enough - so that keeps the sustained existing pressure on public services and a big question for us who use the public services. Hence surely we will have to change the rates of tax if we are to improve services (appropriate for this week). Are you happy to pay more personally as you and I will surely have to do, whilst Chris and much wealthier even than he, continue to pay less than us?

My own view is that, rather than this being cloak and dagger, everyone should pay a flat rate of income tax, irrespective of earnings. That would pretty much wipe out avoidance and evasion at the upper income levels, and attract a lot of high net worth individuals into the country, bringing their money and their jobs with them. I believe this could be achieved at a flat income tax rate at, or lower than, the current basic rate.

There's quite a bit of research that shows that as you increase tax rates beyond about 45%, no additional revenue is forthcoming because of avoidance and satisficing behaviours. It would be interesting to see how the overall tax take changed if top rates were slashed. I know what I think would happen, but it's untested in an economy like ours as far as I know.

[ragingpup]

My own view is that, rather than this being cloak and dagger, everyone should pay a flat rate of income tax, irrespective of earnings. That would pretty much wipe out avoidance and evasion at the upper income levels, and attract a lot of high net worth individuals into the country, bringing their money and their jobs with them. I believe this could be achieved at a flat income tax rate at, or lower than, the current basic rate.

There's quite a bit of research that shows that as you increase tax rates beyond about 45%, no additional revenue is forthcoming because of avoidance and satisficing behaviours. It would be interesting to see how the overall tax take changed if top rates were slashed. I know what I think would happen, but it's untested in an economy like ours as far as I know.

Where do you get your research that leads you to these conclusions?

If I was a super rich person who uses legal loopholes to avoid paying tax on my millions at 40%, why wouldn't I also use legal loopholes to avoid paying tax on my millions at 20%? AS I had gone to great length to establish such loopholes, why would I stop avoiding tax at whatever figure society happens to charge normal working people?

And are you saying that the lower the rate of income tax, the more prosperity you create through attracting wealth? Kerr puts forward similar propositions for corp tax. But struggled to answer why we shouldn't then just cut the tax to 1% How low would you go?

The only certainty I can see from your proposals is that the super rich will get super richer! But will they sufficiently spread the wealth around to avoid further cuts to the public purse? Evidence from historical cuts to taxes are at best inconclusive. I'll look at your research to see if it casts new light.

[animallittle3]

An interesting article in ' The New Statesman ' on how tax breaks for the wealthy and the policy of austerity are flawed and have harmed the country for years to come .

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...t-country-dear

[frogmiller]

Where do you get your research that leads you to these conclusions?

If I was a super rich person who uses legal loopholes to avoid paying tax on my millions at 40%, why wouldn't I also use legal loopholes to avoid paying tax on my millions at 20%? AS I had gone to great length to establish such loopholes, why would I stop avoiding tax at whatever figure society happens to charge normal working people?

And are you saying that the lower the rate of income tax, the more prosperity you create through attracting wealth? Kerr puts forward similar propositions for corp tax. But struggled to answer why we shouldn't then just cut the tax to 1% How low would you go?

The only certainty I can see from your proposals is that the super rich will get super richer! But will they sufficiently spread the wealth around to avoid further cuts to the public purse? Evidence from historical cuts to taxes are at best inconclusive. I'll look at your research to see if it casts new light.

In Russia when olde Glad came in he imposed a tax that shocked even their oligarchs.

He said that everyone must pay 10% tax.

Funny thing happened. The millions who had been avoiding paying taxes started paying taxes.

[ragingpup]

In Russia when olde Glad came in he imposed a tax that shocked even their oligarchs.

He said that everyone must pay 10% tax.

Funny thing happened. The millions who had been avoiding paying taxes started paying taxes.

Interesting. Where's the evidence for this?

[Lasterman]

Where do you get your research that leads you to these conclusions?

If I was a super rich person who uses legal loopholes to avoid paying tax on my millions at 40%, why wouldn't I also use legal loopholes to avoid paying tax on my millions at 20%? AS I had gone to great length to establish such loopholes, why would I stop avoiding tax at whatever figure society happens to charge normal working people?

And are you saying that the lower the rate of income tax, the more prosperity you create through attracting wealth? Kerr puts forward similar propositions for corp tax. But struggled to answer why we shouldn't then just cut the tax to 1% How low would you go?

The only certainty I can see from your proposals is that the super rich will get super richer! But will they sufficiently spread the wealth around to avoid further cuts to the public purse? Evidence from historical cuts to taxes are at best inconclusive. I'll look at your research to see if it casts new light.

In terms of the effect of raising tax rates beyond 45% on overall tax take and tax payer behaviour, my research is from the Institute of Fiscal Studies Mirrlees Review. As I said, the effect of reducing top rates down to basic rate levels on behaviour and tax take is speculation on my part, because it hasn't been done. My opinion is that people at all levels of income are content to pay taxes and don't seek out avoidance measures, if they feel they are being taxed fairly.


A bit of light reading for you:

https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn84.pdf