The Tax Enforcement Society

[louisiana]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But if you are a freelance worker....whose work is

> contract based you CAN claim benefits between

> contracts (providing any savings you have are not

> above the allowed threshold).

But if your contracts do not individually entitle to you any work at all (I've had 5-year+ contracts of that kind; you need 10 of that kind to keep you going) you cannot. The contract has no end date. But it's not giving you any money, maybe for months on end.

You are thinking of people who do umbrella-type contracts into firms for particular periods, where you work on the premises etc etc. That it only a very particular kind of contract. Other contracts are just agreements in principle (for the lawyers, regarding IP and such) that are apart from any actual work that is offered.

[louisiana]

zeban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Er there's making money as any business needs to,

> and there's greed and profiteering at any cost. I

> would suggest Philip Green is in the latter

> category given that he's happy to avoid paying the

> amount of taxes he should be. This is the whole

> point of this argument and why the protesters are

> choosing companies and individuals such as this.

> It isn't a protest against businesses in general

> or the minimum wage so please don't shout at me

> and read the thread properly.

I agree as far as PG is concerned. Anyone who has to use his wife's residence in Monaco as a massive tax dodge is a guy without balls in any case. B)

[zeban]

I don't shop at Topshop! All my clothes are vintage/second hand.

Prices might go up but I'm all for that, cheap throwaway fashion is not the only way to keep yourself clothed when you have little money. Just like shopping at Iceland isn't necessarily the answer for poorer people as some people seem to think is on this forum.

Banning Topshop is not the point, the the protesters are merely pointing out an alternative to the cuts. Maximise profits maybe but just because you are a big business it doesn't mean you're going to avoid paying taxes. If this is true what a truely sad society we live in do you not think? Wouldn't you rather see everyone paying their fair share in taxes than pushing through supposed 'necessary' savage cuts that clearly hit the poorest the most? not to mention women?

[louisiana]

womanofdulwich Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd rather work for Philip Green at just above min

> wage than not work. In fact I would rather anyone

> worked for him at this rate than claimed benefits,

> all sourced from taxes we pay on our earnings ( I

> think I may be a squeezed middle).

That is not the issue.

The issue is whether *PG should pay tax*.

I don't care if he's offering minimum wage rubbish jobs. He does, and so do many thousands of others.

The question is whether his *business* should pay tax, rather than avoiding tax through his wife's Monaco residence.

I think his business should pay tax here. And I think if he does not want to pay tax here, fine and dandy, he can piss off somewhere else, as there really are plenty of others offering rubbish minimum wage jobs, thank you.

[reggie]

Its easier to complain about other people's failings than to confront one's own. However I do agree that it's bloody annoying that these big tycoons and businesses find ways to shaft the system.

But most people legally or illegally shaft the system to a greater or lesser extent. I have a limited company which was set up in order to pay less tax. And most self employed people, I guess,file expenses that stretch the truth.

Somewhere in the middle of Toby Young and Billy Bragg

[tomchance]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Its not therefore correct to say someone should

> pay more tax, if they are acting within the law.

>

> If you do make that argument, then you are being

> subjective.

No, it means I've another objective yardstick, as it were, besides the two you are using - the tax code and law as they currently stand and the logic of capital.

[womanofdulwich]

thanks Louisiana, I was followong the thread, but it was def going off on one.

I will sit down and eat my Iceland bread sandwich.;-)

back to you with the agenda..........

[zeban]

I think if you saw the figures from Philip Green Reggie you'ld certainly ask why we're broke. It's no silly, small amount that's for sure.

[zeban]

womanofdulwich Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> thanks Louisiana, I was followong the thread, but

> it was def going off on one.

> I will sit down and eat my Iceland bread

> sandwich.;-)

> back to you with the agenda..........

You mean, you were def going off on one!

[louisiana]

reggie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Its easier to complain about other people's

> failings than to confront one's own. However I do

> agree that it's bloody annoying that these big

> tycoons and businesses find ways to shaft the

> system.

> But most people legally or illegally shaft the

> system to a greater or lesser extent. I have a

> limited company which was set up in order to pay

> less tax. And most self employed people, I

> guess,file expenses that stretch the truth.

> Somewhere in the middle of Toby Young and Billy

> Bragg

Dear Reggie,

Would you please provide a defence of why a worldwide top 50 billionaire according to Forbes (I'm talking top 50, name recognition for you-all) should have the expenses of his marriage in some third world country written off as a business expense via some UK company? In what way would a third world country marriage certificate (translation thereof) be a business expense?

PS I provide 10p receipts for my stamps and photocopies. And provide name and address and date and time and meeting topic for every meeting that I charge ?1.20 or ?1.30 - by bus - to attend.

[zeban]

tomchance Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not to mention that the income and wealth of

> people like Philip Green is hardly a sacrosanct

> inevitability, a fair reward for their work. The

> market is a pretty arbitrary way of deciding how

> to reward people. Tax is one way that we can

> redistribute income and wealth to share the good

> stuff around a bit more fairly.

>

> I've just had my rent jacked up by 6% again,

> despite having my salary frozen. The tax that

> Green et al dodge could easily pay for a national

> home building programme that would solve a lot of

> the affordability problems we all face.

>

> I've no sympathy with rich and/or wealthy

> individuals or companies who pay less tax than

> they should - whether legally or otherwise - when

> we face so many problems in this country.

Absolutely (tu)

[indiepanda]

louisiana Wrote:

> The point is not that these policies exist. They

> do (at a cost).

>

> The point is that self-employed people have to pay

> for them, because they get zero state benefits.

> With the consequent point that self-employed

> people will have all sorts of expenses that the

> employed do not. I think you are going off on a

> tangent from this issue.

Well, perhaps I misunderstood, but you also seemed to be making a point that having paid for them the insurance companies would rarely pay out anyway, which I would disagree with having seen the claim stats. Wouldn't want self employed people to assume it wasn't worth investigating insurance when it can actually help if you go to the right company and get the right advice.

As for the IFAs.... hmmm, I've met some good ones... suspect they are the exception though. Any that a) seem to know what you mean when you say you are an actuary and b) then don't look nervous you are going to catch them out seem to be alright.

Returning to the point, I think the tax saved by most self employed is trivial compared to the insecurity of the income. My other half is a plasterer and his work goes from being too much at 6 days a week to nothing overnight. The Philip Greens of this world are pretty rare.

[tog_in_sox]

Well said Reggie. Finally had to pipe up.

Arcadia paid ?200-300m in tax last year

Somewhere between 28000 and 45000 employees (don't know how many FTEs but suspect no more than half) - paid a total of ?500m plus company benefits

No figures for sales staff but junior HQ buying and merchandising staff start on ?18.5k. Management in store and HQ on more.

Some of these companies would not be here today if not for PG (or another canny entrepreneur's) involvement.

Can anyone definitively state how much personal tax he paid?

The hypocrisy here is that ask any of those protesters if they were in his shoes how much tax would they pay and a minority would truthfully pay the full due. This is about people not of fortunate circumstance (predominantly employed by the state) bitching about their lot at the expense of the privacy of an individual. PG is prime target because he's the one tasked with shining a light on Public sector excess. They should take a good hard look in the mirror and question:

How much tax is wasted because I don't do my job in the best interests of the taxpayer?

How much am I really worth for what I'm asked to do?

How much of what I do is really worthwhile?

Should I really have bought that and expense it?

The reason the housing market is up the creek is because we wanted a house and to profit from selling a house as many times as we could.

The reason the cost of living is so high is because we choose to buy unnecessarily whilst our fellow citizens sold it to us for as much as they could (not just PG).

The reason the NHS is so overwhelmed is because too many choose to live unhealthily and we don't do anything to actually stop them

The reason the Welfare State is so poor is because too many (not PG) choose to exploit it and defraud it by claiming more than they are entitled to and we don't stop them

We choose to consume more resources more wastefully rather than efficiently and thus drive demand and price of said resources.

It's time to face the realities and responsibilities of a libertarian society and an overly permissive one at that. Beating up on a few wealthy people is so simple to do and so futile. ?120bn tax gap of which only ?25bn is down to the super wealthy entities.

PG is legally entitled to pay as little as he does. Morals have nothing to do with it. You want to do something about it? Vote for people who will change the laws so that no tax loopholes exist and no wastage takes place from the Public purse, but to do that you may have to admit that you don't deserve the job you're in.

[Loz]

Tog in Sox - thank you for bringing sanity to this debate. I couldn't have said it better.

[reggie]

Hey Louisiana,

I'm not defending the guy. I'm pointing out that most limited companies are set up in order to reduce tax and that means not just the high flyers. And that most self_employed enjoy the luxury of setting off a good share of their income against expenses.

In terms of tax evasion, we are all in this together...except those that aren't.

The Suburban Pirate-taking moderation to the extreme

[louisiana]

tog_in_sox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well said Reggie. Finally had to pipe up.

>

> Arcadia paid ?200-300m in tax last year

> Somewhere between 28000 and 45000 employees (don't

> know how many FTEs but suspect no more than half)

> - paid a total of ?500m plus company benefits

> No figures for sales staff but junior HQ buying

> and merchandising staff start on ?18.5k.

> Management in store and HQ on more.

>

> Some of these companies would not be here today if

> not for PG (or another canny entrepreneur's)

> involvement.

>

> Can anyone definitively state how much personal

> tax he paid?

I'd love to know this. This is the question.

And does he also claim VAT back on his personal UK spending, owing to his wife's Monaco residence? (i.e. does he make all purchases in his wife's name? I wouldn't be surprised.)

>

> The hypocrisy here is that ask any of those

> protesters if they were in his shoes how much tax

> would they pay and a minority would truthfully pay

> the full due. This is about people not of

> fortunate circumstance (predominantly employed by

> the state) bitching about their lot at the expense

> of the privacy of an individual. PG is prime

> target because he's the one tasked with shining a

> light on Public sector excess.

I run my own business, and have done for more than twenty years, and was only employed by the state (NHS) for a couple of years, in the early 80s. I hold no torch for the public sector, whatsoever (the opposite). And I consider myself very fortunate, and am in no way bitching about my lot.

If you're worried about privacy, take a look at several Scandinavian countries, where incomes and tax paid by all citizens is online and public, on the interweb.

I could pay less tax than I do if I wanted. It would entail me reducing my salary (and hence PAYE bills) vs dividends, adding more expenses as business expenses, making a close relative who resides in another place a main shareholder (a la P Green) etc. etc. Me, I wouldn't do it.

I just think - example that is very personally known to me - it's bizarre that a worldwide top 50 billionaire should consider the expenses of a marriage a deductible UK business expense. How different is this from the Leona Helmsley trick of billing 8m USD of works to her home to be a business expense? (for which she was - briefly - jailed). I'm sure he's not alone, but this is just one example I am personally aware of.

Reggie: many people set up companies because that's the only way their clients will trade with them, for legal reasons. While their legal reasons are I think highly questionable, without the benefit of a QC's opinion, and in need of work, the self-employed person sets up a company in order to be able to bill the big guys and have some work. It's hard enough to deal with the corporate legal/contract/billing thing in any case, without having to try fighting that particular battle with each and every potential client.

[zeban]

Louisiana - thank you for bringing sanity to this debate.

[Loz]

Well, only if you think paying more tax that you need to is sanity. Next they'll be marching into Sainsburys and demanding to pay for both items in a BOGOF special.

[zeban]

More tax than they need to? Errr no it's the tax they should be paying. And we're not talking a few quid here.

I wish I'd been born in Scandinavia- I'd be happy to pay more tax if it means I work less hours, get better services, free education, and a more equal and happier society.

[SeanMacGabhann]

The more tax a government collects, the less it has to borrow on the markets, the less exposed it is to the current madness, the less likely things are likely to blow up in my (individual or corporate) face

That?s what sanity sounds like to me

I?m aware that anyone arguing for people to pay more tax can be portrayed as enviour or jealous. But that really isn?t the case

But if greed has got us into this global mess then further displays of greed are unseemly at best

[Loz]

zeban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> More tax than they need to? Errr no it's the tax

> they should be paying. And we're not talking a few

> quid here.

>

> I wish I'd been born in Scandinavia- I'd be happy

> to pay more tax if it means I work less hours, get

> better services, free education, and a more equal

> and happier society.

I don't want to sound like the 'well if you like it so much...' brigade, but you don't need to be born in Scandinavia to live there and enjoy that system.

[Brendan]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I don't want to sound like the 'well if you like

> it so much...' brigade,

Well you've just managed to do quite a good job of it.

[zeban]

.

[Loz]

Nope Brendan, just questioning why Zeban thought he had to be born in Scandinavia to live and work there. I thought that was obvious.

[Brendan]

Yeah I know, I was trying to wind you up.