Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Osborne shocked by millionaire tax avoidance

by
10th Apr 2012
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Chancellor George Osborne has expressed shock after looking at 20 anonymised tax returns of multi-millionaires who have exploited tax loopholes to legally reduce their tax bills.

The move could be considered political posturing after a tough couple of weeks for the coalition over the ‘granny’ and ‘pasty’ tax furores; however, it does prepare the ground for the anti-avoidance law consultation that was announced in the Budget.

After being shown the returns by HMRC, Osborne is now convinced that millionaires must pay a minimum rate of tax equivalent to about a third of their earnings, or a ‘tycoon’ tax.

He told The Telegraph:

“I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs, and to be fair it’s within the tax laws, so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don’t think that’s right.

I’m talking about people right at the top. I’m talking about people with incomes of many millions of pounds a year. The general principle is that people should pay income tax and that includes people with the highest incomes.

I’m not allowed to be shown the names of the individuals but I’ve sat with the most senior people at the Inland Revenue, the people who run some of the high net worth units there. They have given me examples, anonymised examples, and so we are taking action.”

The confidential study by HMRC found the top earners are using ‘aggressive’ avoidance schemes to reduce their income tax rate to an average of 10%.

According to The Telegraph it found that the country’s 20 biggest tax avoiders used the following three main 'loopholes' to legally reduce their income tax bills by £145m between them:

  • Writing off business losses in one of their companies against their income tax bill
  • Offsetting the cost of business mortgages or borrowing on buy-to-let properties against their income tax bill
  • Taking advantage of relief on donations to charity

Richard Murphy, who warned in 2008 that the scale of tax avoidance was far higher than HMRC calculated, came up with a three-point plan for Osborne.

He said: “The first is re-estimate the issue. I’d suggest that involves talking to the very few people who have been right about it to date, including me. Second, definitions of abuse have to very clearly be redefined. The mantra, too readily accepted by HMRC ‘that it’s legal so it’s acceptable’ has to be confined to the bin. Third, we have to have comprehensive action to tackle this abuse. Now. Nothing less will do.”

From next year, the total amount of tax relief that any individual can claim will be limited to 25% of their income or £50,000, whichever is greater.

The proposal could lead to restrictions on philanthropic giving, however Osborne pledged to protect and encourage philanthropy.

He said: “I was very clear in the Budget that we are specifically looking at making sure we are still encouraging philanthropy and charitable giving. But that is a specific issue we can deal with.”

Replies (138)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
10th Apr 2012 13:44

.

How is "Offsetting the borrowing on buy-to-let properties" a loop hole?

It is restricted to income on the very same BTL properties...
 

Thanks (0)
Replying to FirstTab:
avatar
By User deleted
10th Apr 2012 14:23

BTL 'loophole'

ireallyshouldknowthisbut wrote:

How is "Offsetting the borrowing on buy-to-let properties" a loop hole?

It is restricted to income on the very same BTL properties...
 

I suspect that the 'mischief' in question is the ability to use BTL capital to effectively cover borrowings for non-qualifying purposes (BIM45700). But since HMRC specifically demonstrate the principle there, how on earth can it be called a "loophole"?

Thanks (0)
Replying to FirstTab:
avatar
By Ken of Chester le Street
17th Apr 2012 09:35

offsetting the borrowing on buy to let properties

Possibly further down the page someone may have already answered the question.

However, and subject to the rules may having  changed since I retired,  I recall that in 2005 or thereabouts HMRC published their guidelines on what interest could be charged. All property income was assessed as a single business, so provided the borrowing was secured on the let property and the investor's current account did not go into debit the loan could be used for anyting, even the withdrawal of capital. Interest relief was  given against all property income, not simply the one on which the loan was secured. This facilitated leveraging, for those bold enough to do it. 

But no, you can't create a trading loss by this means.

There is a lot of sour grapes in the press about all this.  I dislike "aggressive ttax avoidance", but I would have considered myself professionally negligent if I had not advised clients of so called loopholes such as employing ones wife,  equalising estates, timing of investment, carry back of gift aid to maximise age allowance,  trafing through a company, paying dividends instead of salary to owner managers, when and whether to invest in pension schemes, disposal of chargeable assets before taking up residence in the UK,  warning non-domiciled clients when not to remit overseas income, and using all their IHT allowances, and at the other end of the scale, minimising income for tax credits by judicious use of cpaital allowances and charitable giving. Whether they took any notice was another matter!

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By k.bonney2
10th Apr 2012 13:47

More information please

Before we all jump to make judgments, perhaps the person who penned this story could give us a little more information then we can get a sense of what, if anything is going on here.

Exactly which relief is being used to "write off business losses in one of their companies against their income tax bill" .

Exactly which relief is being used to "offset the cost of borrowing on buy-to-let properties against their income tax bill".

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mikewhit
10th Apr 2012 13:51

Not only but also

Writing off business losses in one of their companies against their income tax bill

Isn't that the kind of thing (approximately) that private equity directors do as well - where they structure as much as possible as a 'loss'.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mikewhit
10th Apr 2012 13:54

Story original - "a little more information"

Since there is a "confidential study by HMRC" there should soon be an HMRC press release giving sufficient technical information - shouldn't there ?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
10th Apr 2012 14:31

Quote from Bogart's film Casablanca: I'm shocked, SHOCKED, ...

Play it again, ...

Time that Osborne did something sensible, like abolishing employer national insurance contributions for pensioners over state pension age who might otherwise be caught in the IR35 net, because:

* There is no equitable [and economic] case that employers should FURTHER contribute to state pensions for those workers who already qualify for the currently low (by most western european standards) low state pension, and

* Keeping pensioners in work, and off the streets and/or busses, and out of NHS wards etc etc means that there would be no material economic case for any other (i.e. in addition to unjustified state pensions) contributions from employers. [So both parts of employer NIC for workers > SPA are not justified]

* "Liberating" the ever ageing population who wish to go back into part time etc work would diminish the economic case for further immigration, with concomitant savings on congestion costs, and reductions in capital spending on roads, schools, hospitals, etc, etc.

BTW: Apparently employer national insurance contributions for pensioners over state pension age were required from the original introduction by the post WW2 labour Government, when IT was primitive, e.g. hand cranked Facit machines, etc. That excuse no longer applies, because any up-to-date computer - with electronic databases - could now make the appropriate calculations at negligible costs!

Thanks (0)
Catincupboard
By Rose1962
10th Apr 2012 14:32

loopholes ? More like knitting ?

If HMRC really thinkis these are  the top schemes then what on earth is DOTAS for ?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
10th Apr 2012 14:44

Is GO for real....

have we really got a guy who hasn't got a clue in charge of the money.  Does he not use an accountant himself....has he never been advised how to arrange his affairs in a tax efficient way.....afterall he has enough.  I assume he had this revelation AFTER reducing the tax burden for the top 1%....

 

Time GO did something sensible.....'resign!'.....

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dstickl
10th Apr 2012 15:43

Apparently the US has an Alternative Minimum Tax, is GO thinking

... of having the same here, for the very rich ?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
10th Apr 2012 20:57

What on earth

is HMRC doing, showing anyone someone else's data especially since there is no wrong doing. Whoever did it, even to prove a point, should be sacked. It's amazing that the "shocked" GO is allowed to look at this sort of documentation (what about human rights) yet we can't send national security dangers back to where they came from. Why not show him some tax returns of those in dire straits (that on is for you OGA). Oh yes, of course he wants to close the loopholes so that he can give the money to those that need it (what not to hospitals you cry).

Thanks (0)
Replying to chatman:
avatar
By dstickl
11th Apr 2012 05:46

Wasn't "anonymised" data presented to GO by HMRC?

RE: What on earth ...

johnjenkins wrote:

is HMRC doing, showing anyone someone else's data especially since there is no wrong doing. Whoever did it, even to prove a point, should be sacked. It's amazing that the "shocked" GO is allowed to look at this sort of documentation (what about human rights) yet we can't send national security dangers back to where they came from. Why not show him some tax returns of those in dire straits (that on is for you OGA). Oh yes, of course he wants to close the loopholes so that he can give the money to those that need it (what not to hospitals you cry).

the answer seems to me to be that the data was "anonymised". 

In other words, it seems that the income and tax etcetera numbers - without any words specifically identifying the names and/or other personal identifiers of the taxpayer(s) so that these personal details would remain confidential within the HMRC area - were extracted, analysed, and then presented as a synthesised report to GO illustrating the actual effects of tax policies/practices in action, as anonymous "case studies" of actual behaviour, in the same manner as (for example) in parts of Smith's IR35 book.

So no transgression of "human rights" stuff, apparently. And no sackings ...

Thanks (1)
Replying to Glennzy:
avatar
By frustratedwithhmrc
11th Apr 2012 08:20

Sounds like a reasonable response from HMRC to me...

dstickl wrote:
 In other words, it seems that the income and tax etcetera numbers - without any words specifically identifying the names and/or other personal identifiers of the taxpayer(s) so that these personal details would remain confidential within the HMRC area - were extracted, analysed, and then presented as a synthesised report to GO illustrating the actual effects of tax policies/practices in action, as anonymous "case studies" of actual behaviour, in the same manner as (for example) in parts of Smith's IR35 book.

I know that I am often critical of HMRC, but given the circumstances their actions seem to have been appropriate and balanced.

If the motto of the coalition is to be "We're all in this together" (no laughing at the back there), then it is right that the question is asked about whether the wealthiest are paying their fair share compared to those metaphorical "hard working families".

The fact that the wealthiest taxpayers are using legal tax avoidance mechanisms to reduce their marginal tax rates (while probably still paying a pretty hefty sum in tax) is certainly no credit to MP's as the very complexity of the tax statutes, for which they are primarily responsible, have caused this circumstance in the first place.

However, GO and HM Treasury are right to ask the question and HMRC have given an appropriate, balanced and anonymous response protecting taxpayer confidentiality.

If the conclusion is that a massive simplification of the tax code is required to reduce avoidance then that would seem appropriate. Time for the Office of Tax Simplification to be given a kick up the bottom.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By johnjenkins
11th Apr 2012 09:44

Everybody knows,

sorry all except the "shocked" GO, that the wealthy have always managed to minimise their tax bill. That will not change. It is little wonder then that the less well off try and follow suite. I do take the point, however, that tax payer confidentiality has not been breached, yet. 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By dstickl
11th Apr 2012 09:57

@frustratedwithhmrc:Yes it's "Time for the Office of Tax Simp ..

Yes, agreed, it's "Time for the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) to be given a kick up the bottom", starting with IR35 that they fluffed last year, e.g. by introducing the simplification of "abolishing employer national insurance contributions for pensioners over state pension age who might otherwise be caught in the IR35 net" as I set out yesterday in this thread.

OR is the real problem that OTS has not yet recognised that any tax simplification has to make economic sense, as was suggested by the Tax Law Review Committee 1997 report, prior to the introduction of IR35?

Certainly, a reading of the OTS's Minutes since I alerted John Whiting to this aspect (the need to state explicitly that tax simplification had to make economic sense, contrary to the OTs's Chairman's words of the intro of the OTS IR35 report) last year, suggests an embarrasing silence at OTS over the explicit need "to make economic senses"!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
11th Apr 2012 10:06

For "to make economic sense"

read. Make sure we get as much money as possible, it doesn't cost us anything and don't do anything stupid to cost us the next GE. Oh yes and make sure you make a big splash in the papers to show what a good job you are doing.

Thanks (0)
Della Hudson FCA
By Della Hudson
11th Apr 2012 11:00

Just 20?

This headline about such a small sample will be used to beat up higher rate tax payers again. The sample size/extreme end of the distribution curve is irrelevant to most people and definitely doesn't include any of my non-millionaire clients. It shouldn't be used to justify major policy changes.

 

But it does make a good headline for OC.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By pauljohnston
11th Apr 2012 11:08

John

Closer to the truth I expect. 

The country wants to collect as much tax but Osbourne must realise that if he goes after the "rich" they will move to a more tax friendly country.  If they leave the UK we loose the tax that they are paying and the rest of use pay more tax.

I read somewhere that those that all those that pay 40% tax pay 60% of the total tax collected.  It is probally time for everyone to see what each part of the Govt expenditure costs in £s per taxpayer

Thanks (0)
avatar
By simonwwhitt
11th Apr 2012 11:09

The real tax dodgers ....

.... are of course the likes of Google, Amazon and Apple.  If just these three companies were to pay a "proper" amount of tax the Revenue would probably benefit to the tune of several £Billion a year.  And this could easily be done by having a minimum level of deemed profitability (based on their worldwide income) to calculate their CT and by closing VAT loopholes. 

After all these companies bring no  benefit to the UK economy in terms of jobs etc. so there would be no risk in doing so.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Roseanne1:
avatar
By listerramjet
11th Apr 2012 12:09

doh

simonwwhitt wrote:

.... are of course the likes of Google, Amazon and Apple.  If just these three companies were to pay a "proper" amount of tax the Revenue would probably benefit to the tune of several £Billion a year.  And this could easily be done by having a minimum level of deemed profitability (based on their worldwide income) to calculate their CT and by closing VAT loopholes. 

After all these companies bring no  benefit to the UK economy in terms of jobs etc. so there would be no risk in doing so.

 

which planet do you live on?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Roseanne1:
avatar
By rayhelmke
12th Apr 2012 15:29

Apple Tax

simonwwhitt wrote:

.... are of course the likes of Google, Amazon and Apple.  If just these three companies were to pay a "proper" amount of tax the Revenue would probably benefit to the tune of several £Billion a year.  And this could easily be done by having a minimum level of deemed profitability (based on their worldwide income) to calculate their CT and by closing VAT loopholes. 

After all these companies bring no  benefit to the UK economy in terms of jobs etc. so there would be no risk in doing so.

really...

go into any apple shop and there are just as many staff (Employed!) as there are customers, not to mention the rent & rates they also have to pay.

If HMRC did a deal with Apple (not sure about Google & Amazon) to reduce their corp tax to 12% the same as what they pay for having their HQ in ireland, then we might just get a bit more tax.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By frustratedwithhmrc
12th Apr 2012 15:37

Shabby backroom deals - no thank you!

rayhelmke wrote:

If HMRC did a deal with Apple (not sure about Google & Amazon) to reduce their corp tax to 12% the same as what they pay for having their HQ in ireland, then we might just get a bit more tax.

Oh Really?

What about "Equal treatment under the law"?

Why should Apple get a special discounted corporation tax rate?, but not Smiths Bloomers Limited of Scunthorpe?

I think I'd prefer to do without the tax than have our fiscal authorities negotiate shabby deals in smoke filled rooms.

What are we? Swiss?

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By The Black Knight
11th Apr 2012 11:15

nothing about

Dodgy offshore trusts etc etc etc,

but a clamp down on reliefs that were being used as they were intended !!

Gift relief.,,, Simples don't give...you are better off by not anyway.

Loss relief.....Simples don't invest your capital (not in the UK anyway)

Interest relief......don't borrow and reinvest.

In fact why are you still here?  We do not want successful people in Britain, and you are slowing down the rate of decline and the the government lackies will not get their commission payments and luxury retirement packages from Europe.

This really is pathetic.

Just shows this shower do not have a plan or even know which direction they are pointing.

 

 

 

 

Thanks (2)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
11th Apr 2012 11:15

Charitable giving....what the....

I too am shocked he's shocked and don't believe it.

Where I am dumbfounded is in lumping in charitable giving with other tax avoidance that is perhaps not being used in the true spirit for which it was meant.

Yes, I accept that there are those who set up bogus charities for this purpose but this is not the issue here, he's limiting the tax relief on plain honest charitable giving and this is a political decision being hidden under the cover of making the wealthy pay more tax.

Medical research, learning institutions and charities in general have suffered by governemt austerity measures already and some will never live to see the crappy Big Society so this just adds another few dozen nails to the coffin.

Please tell me I'm missing something here.

This says it far better than me

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By vstrad
11th Apr 2012 18:29

Comment deleted ...

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ladylaff
11th Apr 2012 11:21

And in other news

Bears are known to use the woods as a toilet. Shocking!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By MartinLevin
11th Apr 2012 11:27

Tax on the Radio

If anyone did hear my three interviews over the Easter break (on London Broadcasting), I made the point that it is the sub-text that should be looked at.

1. George Osborne, as Chancellor, is the top of the pyramid.  He should  know everything.  So why is he "shocked"?

2. Why is this story being thrown out to manipulate the media, who appear to have fallen for it?  Tax planning is what the game is all about.

3. Waste in the public sector - is surely the real issue, that can be countered with Value for Money Audits or, as my (overlooked) recommendation states Ratio Accounting (the numbers of productive persons to non-productive administrators).

4. Charities are the latest side-swipe to suffer from Government announcements.  If donations are “capped”, then funds dry up, and the community spirit evaporates with it.  Remember how Gareth Malone’s Choirs on television brings this out?

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By androo235
11th Apr 2012 13:14

Who's productive?

In reply to "Tax on the Radio" - Martin Levin - above somewhere...

How many accountants and lawyers make a very good non-productive living out of the complexities of our tax code (not that other countries are much different) and so have a vested interest in it's continued existence in more or less it's present state.. How many of the loopholes that exist and continue to add to the whole edifice were and are being lobbied for by said accountants and lawyers (or people expensively advised by them - who then expensively lobby).

Given your comments above it beggars belief that anyone thinks you worth interviewing about anything.

landvaluetax.org (Henry George - Poverty and Progress) and positivemoney,org uk

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Romanista
11th Apr 2012 11:50

The Laffer Curve

Obviously Mr O is not a man for detail as he has not noticed that the Inland Revenue are now known as HMRC or that the country's top earners are paying very little tax.  As for reducing the top rate and the tax take falls.  What can you expect if you announce  a temporary higher rate of income tax.  Of course the people who can afford to defer income are going to delay taking it until the rate comes back down.  That is one of the main skewering effects on the Laffer curve.

He would have done better  to announce that the top rate was going to increase from 40% to say 60% in five per cent increments over four years and then to stay at that level indefinitely.  That would have encourage those taxpayers to advance the withdrawal of income and increased the tax take.

Would the wealthy have gone offshore.  Some were already doing that when the rate was 40%.  Some people just don't want to pay tax no matter how much money they own and will go to any lengths to avoid doing so.

Thanks (2)
7om
By Tom 7000
11th Apr 2012 11:51

My thoughts
Writing off business losses in one of their companies against their income tax bill

 

Sounds like the co went bust and the share capital was tax deductable....what a terrible thing to do...get tax relief on your failed new business.

Offsetting the cost of business mortgages or borrowing on buy-to-let properties against their income tax bill

I cant believe interest on qualifying loans is tax deductable, this is clearly wrong and I will ensure I add it back in  all our clients future tax returns so more tax is paid....so they can sue me,...

Taking advantage of relief on donations to charity 

Personally I recommend giving nothing to any charity, they have never given me anything, even when I was growing up and couldnt afford shoes.... Give nothing away ever.

Thanks (2)
Nigel Harris
By Nigel Harris
11th Apr 2012 11:56

Clueless or just PR?

So is George really clueless, or is he just window dressing to hide the Government's unwillingness to address these issues? He's certainly not the first Chancellor to bleat about people using legitimate tax reliefs to reduce their tax bills - remember Gordon Brown's shock that small companies had the audacity NOT to pay Corporation Tax on profits under £10,000 when he introduced the nil rate?

If there are legal tax strategies, reliefs and allowances that are deemed unacceptable all the Government has to do is abolish them, duh! They are the only people who can change the rules - why do they just complain about them instead?

People with large incomes have the potential to save correspondingly large amounts of tax, that's just simple arithmetic. But don't abolish tax reliefs and allowances that benefit Mr Average just because the wealthy also benefit from them.

Or do we want to return to Harold Wilson's 90-100% plus marginal rate of tax on high incomes and effectively apply an envy tax on incomes above whatever level Parliament decides on our behalf is the acceptable maximum. That seems to work pretty well in Cuba, I understand :) !

Thanks (0)
avatar
By John Snowden
11th Apr 2012 12:15

Couple of things we are forgetting?

While it would appear that our Chancellor may be a tax-illiterate, and that it is clear that our press is, can we please remember:

1. That for Mr Average there is a lower limit on the cap, ie £50,000 (which, granted, might be argued to be too low - or too high?) and

2. Gift Aid as such was only invented during G Brown's chancellorship - charities existed before then.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
11th Apr 2012 12:16

I'm shocked

Did his hair stand on end?  Did he "go to the bottom of our stairs"?  Just what sort of shock was it?  Perhaps it was shock at seeing his own tax return compared to other peoples - wonder which tricks he missed?

Actually I am shocked to see an accountancy based site regurgutate this nonsense story along with comments by Rentaquote Murphy Esq - is this chap on your payroll?

At least there are some comments following the peice, bringing a little sanity to this nonsense.

Thanks (0)
7om
By Tom 7000
11th Apr 2012 12:22

I have a plan

Lets say the most pay you can get working for a state organisation is the level where the 20% tax band changes to 40% and you get this if you are an MP. Anyone else, civil servant, council CEO, teachers  cant earn more. Also ''consultants '' are illegal in all state organisations, they can only have employees.

Also the maximum level of all state benefits per person is where the nil band changes to 20%.

If you dont like it you dont have to work for the state or you can get a job..

Now how much will that save?

 

Am I too harsh?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By dstickl
11th Apr 2012 12:31

SUMUP SOFAR: Labour's rotten rule meant "There's no money left"

in 2010, which has - as exemplified by the previous posters' moans and groans - since had adverse consequences for the whole UK economy, including the need for taxes to make better economic sense [i.e. from the perspective of the whole UK economy], e.g. as was suggested by the Tax Law Review Committee 1997 report (prior to the simplistic introduction of the fiscal horror of IR35, incidentally, that removed some productive workers from the UK economy, and was followed by a net influx of around 2 million immigrants apparently matching the current 2 million unemployed). 

So why not have an Alternative Minimum Tax, as USA, to get some money in to fund the UK economy? Isn't this a charitable cause that'd gladden normal charity givers?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By John Snowden
11th Apr 2012 12:32

Murphy - politicians

Yes.... I keep e-mailing BBC about the very frequent appearances of Mr M on their programmes. Clearly all are entitled to their views but our friend does seem not to be introduced (as I think he should be) as a pressure group - rather than an expert. His constant appearance on these programmes merely adds to the hysteria.

Meanwhile, what the journalists seem always to miss is that tax law is written, or at least passed, by politicians. 'Loopholes' are deliberately created for policy reasons or inadvertantly created due to incompetence. The Government do not apply morality to the application of tax law yet MPs

1. blame taxpayers for avoiding tax legally but 'immorally' and

2. forget to blame themselves as a body for making tax law in the first place!

Thanks (3)
avatar
By JeremyNewman
11th Apr 2012 12:41

Gift Aid

Before Gift Aid, there were Deeds of Covenant. These gave tax relief on donations to the donor, and the charity got a refund of basic rate tax. The major difference between Gift Aid & DoCs is that the latter required a minimum period of commitment from the donor.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By androo235
11th Apr 2012 16:54

Land Value Tax - can't be avoided

Can't be avoided, likely to significantly reduce cost of collection and perhaps largely eliminate the deadweight cost to society of the useless legions of highly paid lawyers and tax accountants. Talented people perhaps more of us could then do something useful.

There are single-taxers, that is those who believe that LVT, as originally proposed by the American, Henry George, should be the one and only tax and that all others, yes that's right all others, VAT, NI, Income Tax, Inheritance Tax, Rates, business rates, corporation tax, stamp Duty, the lot, will be found to be unnecessary.

Don't think LVT could raise enough? I think the Telegraph recently reported on a valuation of residential property in the UK at over £5trn (it was actually trying to say that current levels of private debt are OK, another but a related subject, at less than 40% of this). The point is that commercial property values will likely double this. So we have £10trn of capital value, but LVT (some argue the terminology is wrong it's not really a tax but a charge) is on the annual rental value. Well lets say 1/20th of the capital value that gets us £500bn. That's ball park the current tax take from a single tax that cannot be avoided or evaded.

Personally I believe a modern implementation would keep sin taxes (alcohol, tobacco, perhaps carbon - whatever society decides is sinful) and some income tax, perhaps a flat rate on very high incomes.

landvaluetax.org.uk - oh and for the bankers and debt, positivemoney.org.uk

Thanks (0)
avatar
By dominovision
11th Apr 2012 13:06

Pack your bags

Do the general public really think the top earners will hang around for more than 91 days a year if they introduce further measures? not likely. Top 1% pay 27% or so... I think that is more than fair, in fact unfair.

Especially when most peopl are starting to confuse tax avoidance with evasion, had the head of the teachers union on the bbc news yesterday did just that and the interviewer didn't even pick up on it.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By evanowen
11th Apr 2012 13:07

Balance

Could HMRC show the Chancellor 'anonymised' tax returns of pensioners, the self-employed and those on low wages?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By mikewhit
11th Apr 2012 13:21

You really don't want anyone to work "for the state"

do you, Tom 7000 ?

Oh well, good luck with that heart bypass ...

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By The Black Knight
11th Apr 2012 15:57

nope

mikewhit wrote:

do you, Tom 7000 ?

Oh well, good luck with that heart bypass ...

even that should be privatised the competition reduces waste and improves service !!!

low tax + small state is the way everyone benefits, examples include H.K and Texas.

It's not the heart bypass that is the problem... the MRSA will get him anyway....stay well clear Tom !

Thanks (0)
Tom McClelland
By TomMcClelland
11th Apr 2012 13:28

Charitable giving is "tax avoidance" ?

Huh? Run that by me again.

Giving money to charity,coincidentally reducing income tax is "agressive tax avoidance" ? So important a factor in agressive avoidance that it is one of the three mentioned strategies.

Assuming the charity in question is genuine no-one following this strategy ends up with more money in their pocket than if they'd not donated. Arguably they're benefiting society and cutting out the state middle-man. Many people might make a judgement that they benefit society more by targeting their money at a particular charity rather than pouring it into the wasteful state sausage machine. Where is the problem here? Is it that rich people might not donate to the "correct" charity? Apparently only the government knows how to distribute our money.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By cecilgorwyn
11th Apr 2012 13:41

various extreme views.

There are a number of opinions.

But - Tax laws are made by politicians.

        They themselves are prime users of the gaps deliberately left.

        ( note the ex-right-dishonorable Blair's "limited partnership" )

         Removing Income Tax entirely and having VAT at 35 - 100% as in other counties

         including scope on shares, property etc would be a more efficient and unavoidable              system   - but that is NOT of course, the aim.

        Clearly, someone with a degree of demonstrable competence ( Accouning or mathematical qualifications) would have been a better choice as the chancellor.

         as remarked elsewhere, " If you punish money, it goes away"

 

         What is however tiresome is that even a part-time cleaning lady on minimum wage

         now appears to need an accountant............

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By androo235
11th Apr 2012 13:44

Is it possible to UnThank somebody?

Tony 7000 seems to display a complete lack of empathy for any experiences outside his own in both his posts though particularly his first. What narrow vision he has - an ideal tax accountant for today!

I would Unthank him for sure.

Perhaps you should introduce this innovation (the beeb has thumbs up and down).

landvaluetax.org.uk and positivemoney,org.uk

Thanks (1)
Replying to Knight Rider:
avatar
By The Black Knight
11th Apr 2012 15:50

That's Tom 7000 if my short term memory super powers serve me.

androo235 wrote:

Tony 7000 seems to display a complete lack of empathy for any experiences outside his own in both his posts though particularly his first. What narrow vision he has - an ideal tax accountant for today!

I would Unthank him for sure.

 

kettles and black pots come to mind ?

and I think Toms comments were tongue in cheek!

Be best to tax brains you can then take revenge for your brain envy issues on accountants and lawyers.

Didn't they experiment with this in Cambodia a few years ago ?

unfortunately having brains is not our fault it is a genetic illness and we should get more tax credits for it ( is that how it works or have I missed something ?)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By androo235
11th Apr 2012 14:09

Various Extreme Views....

In reply to cecilgorwyn,

The low paid and those with few or no assets should therefore pay the highest proportion of their income in taxes then (the VAT on everything system you suggest). Of course you could have a multi-rate system with exemptions etc.

Ahh... complexity and billions of transactions to keep records of and assess. Just what we accountants like. Hide a few transactions, or reduce the amounts and pay little or no tax but still have your stuff. Pay employees in kind so that nobody pays tax! People with incomes to pay accountants will like it too - perhaps we could be paid in kind?

Think harder - look harder.

landvaluetax.org.uk and positivemoney.org.uk

Thanks (0)
avatar
By nigel_price
11th Apr 2012 14:15

Duke of Westminster, anybody?

Or is the maxim now, arrange your affairs in such a way as to maximise the tax you pay, or bear the scorn of GO!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By johnjenkins
11th Apr 2012 14:58

Go for it

frustratedwithhmrc.. I'm right beside you.It's just as well GO isn't a footballer, can you imagine the songs sung from the terrace?

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Salilah
11th Apr 2012 15:18

where is the article?

With respect, how is this an article?  How does it inform us further, raise extra challenges, provide data or information, or reach a view?

All you appear to have done is reiterate a journalist's posting in the Telegraph, then quote someone who says "I told you so, now please ask me" - huh???

I'm looking for the informed discussion, the insight on what actually people are doing, whether this is really an issue or a method of hitting headlines etc etc - some of this is in the comments, but why oh why is your original article so poor???

Thanks (1)

Pages