LondonMix

Again, the lowest fifth get tax transfers back so this info isn't complete but the stand alone analysis on indirect taxes makes a fairly clear case. Is there a reason to believe the ONS data is wrong on this? Is that where the debate is? I'm genuinely interested.

Who thinks that? The graphics in this article based on the ONS data make it pretty clear the lowest fifth of earners lose a much larger portion of their income to indirect taxes- the majority of which is VAT. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-graph-that-shows-how-the-poor-are-paying-more-than-the-rich-in-tax-10353982.html

Can you provide some information on that debate. The ONS statistics are pretty clear and are regularly published about what proportion of each economic quintiles income goes toward consumption taxes like VAT. I've never heard anyone before claim here or in the US that consumption taxes aren't regressive. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > VAT in this country is very high and its a very > regressive form of taxation [...] > > There is a LOT of debate on whether VAT is > progressive, regressive or even proportional.

I'd add though that many households pay no effective tax (often negative) once government payments to them are taken into consideration so its not cut and dry. A simpler system is called for. However, there is no getting around the demographics. The working age population is shrinking as a proportion of the total population. Everyone will have to pay more tax or public services will have to be reduced to reflect the proportional changes. This isn't a problem that is small enough that it can be solved by taxing the top 1% of earners.

I believe in a progressive tax system, particularly on earned income. VAT in this country is very high and its a very regressive form of taxation but virtually all other elements of the tax system are progressive. I'd be in favor of lower consumption taxes and increasing taxes on earned income progressively across all income groups to make up the difference.

Blah Blah, I agree that there are people who evade taxes illegally and immorally. There are also people who use offshore vehicles both transparently and as they are intended to be used when the UK government created a tax treaty. Don't try to bring America into this tough. As an American, I can tell you that the tax system is incredibly complex and influences how people invest and you shouldn't draw simplistic conclusions. Saying that rich people should pay more tax is an entire different argument to all the rest of this. Personally, I think if people want to maintain the level of public services, everyone will have to pay more taxes. To complain about budget cuts while accepting your tax cut without complain (and the Tories have cut every working persons taxes) is extremely hypocritical. Everyone can vote, and this country has a government that is enacted public policies it campaigned on. This is what the majority of voting age people clearly want.

I agree about that. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's really not the point. Cameron made 5 > statements all intended to mislead, or at the very > least obfuscate. That's pretty inexcusable, > especially when you've been calling for > transparency. The story wouldn't have gone > anywhere but for his attempts to mislead the press > and the public.

That was my point a bit earlier up thread. Some of the structures we are talking about are no more immoral than an ISA and are used by government entities. They are used in the exact spirit the law intended. Its a separate debate as to if the law should be what it is or if the law is fair. However, as I've said before, there isn't a moral equivalency with actual evasion. Its like asking someone why they take the tax incentive when investing in their pension rather than just investing outside a pension product and pay more tax. Of course, if you want to do it that's fine but to be condemned for using tax incentives in the law as the law expects you to is not cheating or sneaky.

No of course not Otta. I assumed asking if she should be sworn at or flattered as a bit tongue in cheek! No one deserves to be sworn at. I've had to tell women with prams to get out of the wheel chair bit after they initially weren't moving but have never resorted to swearing.

Despite your age, do you feel elderly. If not, then whoever told you to get up (assuming someone elderly needed to seat) was right to do so.

Apparently as he chaired the Lords' privileges and conduct committee!

Yes, I agree the block would have to be from the south side. Try going for a viewing before work if the owners will allow it and you can check it out.

Wasn't a some Tory peer caught out like that relatively recently. I vaguely remember seeing a old white man in women's lingerie surrounded by prostitutes on the cover of tabloids. I can't remember all the details of who he was but I'm sure it was either a politician or a judge. Who was that again? red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *Bob* Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Sometimes I long for the days when a Tory > > political scandal meant spanking, riding crops, > > and an orange wedged in the mouth. > > Never mind, I'm sure the Rocket Man will come up > trumps any day now...

No, I get what you are saying Bob. You are saying that its wrong that he didn't disclose the fact that he was left an offshore vehicle. That in the debate about tax avoidance over the years when he was condemning others, he should have been upfront and said he inherited one rather than being politically calculating and saying nothing, even though he didn't avoid any taxes and did nothing wrong. I don't entirely disagree. However, for better or worse, because of the nature of politics these days, unforced disclosure on complicated issues can feel risky so I see it less as hypocrisy and more as,....I'm not sure what.

I repeat, he did not grasp anything on the sly. If he had been given his inheritance as a wire transfer in cash to his bank account and then invested it he would have received the same 30k CGT allowance. Its the same as you tax free allowance for income tax. You just get it. Its nothing special.

What do you mean? The 30k CGT tax free allowance applies to everyone. He didn't get it because his inheritance was in the offshore vehicle. He got zero benefit. Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with what *Bob* says > > And like I mentioned earlier if it's morals vs > cash, then morals can take second consideration. > But to me the cash is near immaterial, it's the > 'hope no one finds out' bit for ?30k > > That's the damage done, he's sold himself short > and compromised his future position. And it's that > he'll forever be reminded of

I'm not sure not disavowing your inheritance makes you a hypocrite when trying to enact tax evasion reforms. If he deserves a rebuke, its for thinking he could wiggle out of this without making full disclosure when asked directly.

Okay, Bob you find his reforms insincere and done for PR rather than out of true conviction because he didn't disinherit himself. If that's the story and the scandal then hopefully we can all move on. Rahrahrah, I agree he has been evasive in coming forward with the details. My guess is he feared that despite no wrong doing, it would turn into a scandal anyhow. He was right. He was incredibly naive to think he could get away without a full disclosure and should be facing criticism for that regardless of why. I disagree he's been a hypocrite but that's by the by. I do agree the UK is a part of the global tax avoidance machine and that UK law explicitly allows and encourages various forms of tax avoidance. How this should be tackled is complicated but its a legitimate debate to have.

Yes and no. Silicon Valley used to be in Palo Alto near Stanford. It is near San Fran but not in it. It's had an impact on prices in San Fran for decades but in recent years the tremendous increase in rents and house prices have basically pushed lots of people out of the city who could have happily lived there before. Rents for a studio apartment in many parts of San Fran are in excess of $3,500 a month. Its absolutely insane.

So, the only way Cameron could clamp down on tax evasion in your mind is if he'd refused his inheritance? That's the bar by which he should be judged even though he has not evaded any taxes when getting his inheritance or when liquidating it? And for not refusing his inheritance you think he should what exactly? Reverse the measures implemented to clamp down on evasion at HMRC? Or does he have to resign? Also, its the CGT allowance for couples not the dividend allowance (which doesn't exist though there is a lower tax rate for dividends than ordinary income to create an incentive for investment).

That doesn't make sense. Most times reform comes from those who have benefited and best understand the ills of an issue. One could just as easily argue that Cameron's disgust with what his father did is what has spurred him to make clamping down on evasion a priority for his government. Again, no one can actually argue that this government hasn't clamped down on evasion more than recent labor administrations have. That's the problem with judging people based on their parents actions. Individuals have no control over their parents actions or the advantages they received as children as a result of their parents decisions. As adults people can and often do strongly disapprove of some of their parents' behavior. *Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As for judging people by the actions / deeds of > > their parents, I think that's a terrible idea. > I > > actually can't imagine anything worse for a > > society. > > Under normal circumstances I wouldn't. I hope > no-one would judge me in such a manner. But then > I'm not heading-up a government whose policy is to > clamp down on tax avoidance despite me having > directly benefited from a fortune made from > helping people avoid tax - and kept quiet about it > - until someone found out. That's the difference.

Really JohnL? I'm not surprised. My only question is if its a middle class lefty or someone who is a poor and long standing member of the neighborhood. The protests in Shoreditch last year didn't feel like a neighborhood uprising. With that said, people in San Francisco hate the tech kids now and tensions have boiled over into the streets.

Again, I say all of this as someone who disagrees with a number of the governments policies.

*Bob* I doubt anyone on this thread doubts that privilege provides substantial advantages. That benefit is already measurable at the level of economic privilege prevalent in ED. If you think privilege automatically disqualifies you from being PM then you must have felt that way before because Cameron has ALWAYS been privileged. As for judging people by the actions / deeds of their parents, I think that's a terrible idea. I actually can't imagine anything worse for a society.

Got it and agree.