Hunt the Budget
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
Look a squirrel
Great to see JohnD learn about tax, his 2nd favourite subject.
Does this side tracking mean you accept HMRCs definition of tax avoidance?
Great to see JohnD learn about tax, his 2nd favourite subject.
Does this side tracking mean you accept HMRCs definition of tax avoidance?
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 10,707
- Reaction score
- 803
- Country
Wow that's desperate.Well it’s really simple. Which is probably why you two don’t get it.
HMRC provide clear guidance on what schemes might be tax avoidance
Spot the signs of tax avoidance
www.gov.uk
Funny how they don’t mention approved schemes that allow certain exemptions.
Does a government approved scheme with specific notification forms sound like
“bending the tax rules to try to gain a tax advantage that was never intended. ”
Tax avoidance is legal. Evasion isn't.
Nobody has said it is evasion. Hmrc know the difference, that's all worded to scare off the small tax payer from trying too hard to avoid tax.
The scheme you are benefiting from is purely tax avoidance on luxury goods.
Nobody has suggested you looked for a dodgy scheme, you are just using the tools that benefit the well off.
As i said before. Those that can afford such goods can afford the vat. It's tax the country could use.
Nobody said you shouldn't use such a scheme. But such schemes shouldn't exist.
Hunt gives billions less to the NHS.
Try to remember that next time you're waiting for an appointment.
"The opposition Labour Party had previously said it would abolish the non-dom regime if it came to power, and spend the money raised on the National Health Service."
CNN.com
Try to remember that next time you're waiting for an appointment.
"The opposition Labour Party had previously said it would abolish the non-dom regime if it came to power, and spend the money raised on the National Health Service."
CNN.com
"Tories cost NHS and other public services £18bn by not scrapping non-dom tax break 9 years ago, Labour says.
New analysis suggests delay has cost the equivalent of the NHS’s annual drugs bill, as Labour’s Wes Streeting says Sunak was ‘wedded to the loophole for too long"
www.independent.co.uk
Public Services, No.
Vote buying, Yes.
New analysis suggests delay has cost the equivalent of the NHS’s annual drugs bill, as Labour’s Wes Streeting says Sunak was ‘wedded to the loophole for too long"
Sunak wedded to non-dom policy that ‘cost NHS £18bn’ for too long, says Labour
EXCLUSIVE: New analysis suggests delay has cost the equivalent of the NHS’s annual drugs bill, as Labour’s Wes Streeting says Sunak was ‘wedded to the loophole for too long’
www.independent.co.uk
Public Services, No.
Vote buying, Yes.
"Labour has accused the Conservatives of depriving hospitals and other public services of £18bn by rejecting its calls to scrap tax breaks for “non-doms” for the last nine years.
The party also hit out at the “mother of all U-turns” in its first full-throated attack on expectations Jeremy Hunt will steal one of its flagship policies in the Budget on Wednesday.
And in comments that will be widely seen as a reference to Rishi Sunak’s wife, Labour’s shadow health secretary Wes Streeting said the prime minister had been “wedded” to the loophole for too long.
Akshata Murty hit the headlines two years ago when The Independent first revealed that she was a non-dom. In response, Ms Murty, whose family business is estimated to be worth around £60bn, announced that she would start paying British taxes on all her worldwide income.
Despite previously arguing the move would drive high-earners overseas"
The party also hit out at the “mother of all U-turns” in its first full-throated attack on expectations Jeremy Hunt will steal one of its flagship policies in the Budget on Wednesday.
And in comments that will be widely seen as a reference to Rishi Sunak’s wife, Labour’s shadow health secretary Wes Streeting said the prime minister had been “wedded” to the loophole for too long.
Akshata Murty hit the headlines two years ago when The Independent first revealed that she was a non-dom. In response, Ms Murty, whose family business is estimated to be worth around £60bn, announced that she would start paying British taxes on all her worldwide income.
Despite previously arguing the move would drive high-earners overseas"
"In the Budget, Mr Hunt said he was scrapping tax breaks for non-doms who have lived in the country for more than four years. But the Treasury have since confirmed to the Mirror that this does not apply to Inheritance Tax. It means that should Mrs Murty die, no inheritance tax would be charged on her estate when it passed to Mr Sunak or their children."
Mirror.co.uk
Mirror.co.uk
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,607
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
The arguments for Non Dom tax is based on the theory of trickle down economics which has been debunked so often hpever the dogs on here really like barking up that tree.
LSE is leftwing now?
www.lse.ac.uk
LSE is leftwing now?
Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich | LSE Research
Trickle-down economic policies are destined to fail, research suggests. David Hope explains why the issue is so controversial.
www.lse.ac.uk
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
I tend look at the author not the publisher. Read his bio
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,607
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
And your point is. Go on then.
Last edited:
Supporters of the rich really don't like people who speak up for justice and fair taxation.
The result is that many economists who study the actual effects of tax policy are branded rabid Lefties in an attempt to discredit them.
Motorbiking uses a vague smear in place of a reasoned rebuttal.
There is no particular relationship between being rich, and working hard or being skilled. The false idea that wealth is in some way "deserved" is often used as an excuse for giving extra benefits to them. It is a naive or poorly thought through concept. If you mention that, you may find Motorbiking and his ilk accuse you of being a communist.
The result is that many economists who study the actual effects of tax policy are branded rabid Lefties in an attempt to discredit them.
Motorbiking uses a vague smear in place of a reasoned rebuttal.
There is no particular relationship between being rich, and working hard or being skilled. The false idea that wealth is in some way "deserved" is often used as an excuse for giving extra benefits to them. It is a naive or poorly thought through concept. If you mention that, you may find Motorbiking and his ilk accuse you of being a communist.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
Happy to remind you that the top 1% pay 29.1% of all income tax. The top 10% pay 60.3% and the bottom 50% less than 10%.
No surprise that those who pay the least want those who pay the most, to pay more.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,607
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
This is facetious as usual. A ss backwards as usual.
The top 1% - how do they make their money? Selling to the top 1% or selling to the masses?
You can't be in the top 1% if there was no one able to buy what you are selling.
So a footballer on £10m plus a year - where does the club that pays him get their income from?
You want the bottom to pay more taxes - pay them more and they will pay more taxes.
Get rid of all the people who earn less than the median quartile - would the rich become richer? Or would aggregate demand fall?