|
Post by Jim on Apr 5, 2024 13:39:03 GMT
Ain't necessarily so. Why does taking a stance as a socialist mean you have to be a pauper? You can have paid employment with a charity but if you do charity work, you're giving your time for free. You don't need to be a pauper to be a socialist. Neither do you need to pretend to be a socialist, when your choices and ideas in life indicate that socialism is a long way from being one of your ideals. I hope that's not too boring for you. a word for those lacking in intellect, just trying to be clever, workers in a charity, especially a small one, are rarely well paid, I was certainly well below commensurate pay scales, eg if I'd stayed in teaching. That's before counting the unpaid hours. Have I missed your reply about going to do charity work in a state currently in anarchy? At least I put my money where my mouth is.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 5, 2024 16:36:48 GMT
You can have paid employment with a charity but if you do charity work, you're giving your time for free. You don't need to be a pauper to be a socialist. Neither do you need to pretend to be a socialist, when your choices and ideas in life indicate that socialism is a long way from being one of your ideals. I hope that's not too boring for you. a word for those lacking in intellect, just trying to be clever, workers in a charity, especially a small one, are rarely well paid, I was certainly well below commensurate pay scales, eg if I'd stayed in teaching. That's before counting the unpaid hours. Have I missed your reply about going to do charity work in a state currently in anarchy? At least I put my money where my mouth is. So you were doing paid work, not charity work. Thanks for clearing that up. By the way to understand 'anarchy' as used within a previous signature of mine. It's indicative of my preference for a relatively small government with less laws and regulation rather than big government with more laws and regulations. Hope that clears that up for you. I put all of my money exactly where my mouth is, I certainly don't pretend to be something I'm not, for virtue perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 6, 2024 8:06:31 GMT
a word for those lacking in intellect, just trying to be clever, workers in a charity, especially a small one, are rarely well paid, I was certainly well below commensurate pay scales, eg if I'd stayed in teaching. That's before counting the unpaid hours. Have I missed your reply about going to do charity work in a state currently in anarchy? At least I put my money where my mouth is. So you were doing paid work, not charity work. read it again! Not what I said. You are jumping to conclusions to cause strife and dissent. I can see why you struggle to post a simple pic of a sea bass, yet you expect us to hang on your every word on major issues around the globe.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 6, 2024 8:10:08 GMT
So you were doing paid work, not charity work. read it again! Not what I said. You are jumping to conclusions to cause strife and dissent. I can see why you struggle to post a simple pic of a sea bass, yet you expect us to hang on your every word on major issues around the globe. Hang on to any of my words you like, at least they are genuine.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 9, 2024 17:15:50 GMT
I see that the shadow Chancellor has promised to crack down on tax avoidence. This is to make up the difference, now that the Tories have stolen her non-dom tax increase.
It's slightly worrying that a potential Chancellor appears to be unaware that tax avoidence is perfectly legal. Tax avoidence simply being applying all the rules of the tax system in order to minimise tax liability.
I assume the potential Chancellor really meant tax evasion.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Apr 9, 2024 17:20:30 GMT
Or changes to the rules to make tax avoidance tax evasion.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 9, 2024 17:21:53 GMT
Or changes to the rules to make tax avoidance tax evasion. That's possible but would come under the heading of tax increases, which Ms. Reeves has ruled out.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Apr 9, 2024 17:23:19 GMT
Semantics.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 9, 2024 17:25:16 GMT
I think it's fairly clear that Ms. Reeves got her language muddled. This is quite worrying.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 9, 2024 17:29:13 GMT
Avoiding paying tax by employing a accountant who can wriggle out of payments isn't fair.
There's plenty for the next chancellor to squeeze though...
10 years out of date but I doubt little has changed either way, both figures are likely to have gone up. Happy to see any current evidence if anyone can find any.
"We can extrapolate from previous figures quoted by the NAO for the 2012/2013 financial year, which found around £1.2bn of deliberate fraud on the part of benefit claimants, representing around 34 per cent of the overpayment total that year. If these proportions remained unchanged, benefit fraud would have risen to around £1.6bn. The remaining £3bn would be accounted for by mistakes made by claimants when applying, or errors by department officials.
The Guardian this week cited estimates from officials that suggest benefit fraud costs the country around £1.3bn a year.
Tax evasion and avoidance
According to figures published by the government in October, the tax "gap" for 2013/2014 stood at £34bn, or 6.4 per cent. This is the shortfall between what is estimated by HMRC to be due in tax and what is actually collected.
This eye-watering figure includes as much as £14bn in uncollected income tax, national insurance and capital gains tax and £13.1bn in uncollected VAT."
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 9, 2024 17:30:18 GMT
She needs a spell here on TB. That would be very instructive for her I expect.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 9, 2024 17:41:49 GMT
Avoiding paying tax by employing a accountant who can wriggle out of payments isn't fair. There's plenty for the next chancellor to squeeze though... 10 years out of date but I doubt little has changed either way, both figures are likely to have gone up. Happy to see any current evidence if anyone can find any. "We can extrapolate from previous figures quoted by the NAO for the 2012/2013 financial year, which found around £1.2bn of deliberate fraud on the part of benefit claimants, representing around 34 per cent of the overpayment total that year. If these proportions remained unchanged, benefit fraud would have risen to around £1.6bn. The remaining £3bn would be accounted for by mistakes made by claimants when applying, or errors by department officials. The Guardian this week cited estimates from officials that suggest benefit fraud costs the country around £1.3bn a year. Tax evasion and avoidance According to figures published by the government in October, the tax "gap" for 2013/2014 stood at £34bn, or 6.4 per cent. This is the shortfall between what is estimated by HMRC to be due in tax and what is actually collected. This eye-watering figure includes as much as £14bn in uncollected income tax, national insurance and capital gains tax and £13.1bn in uncollected VAT." Do you not lodge your allowable expenses against your receipts, when completing your tax return?
|
|
|
Post by fi on Apr 9, 2024 17:52:48 GMT
For point of argument...
If I ran a business and hosted a party providing alcohol for clients, I could claim that against the business tax liabilty. Tax avoidance or just a bribe or fair.
If a government decided that alcoholic expenses were no longer claimable as an entertainment expense, would the government be accused of putting up taxes?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 9, 2024 17:59:38 GMT
Who would claim that making people pay the tax they should is "putting up taxes" but someone who doesn't like to contribute? Increasing the tax take isn't putting up taxes.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 9, 2024 18:05:59 GMT
Answer the question Jim. Do you offset allowable expenses against revenues to calculate your tax laibility when doing your annual tax return for your buy to let 'business'?
|
|