Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    IT doesn't conflict with the HRMC report, if you read it. And at least he acknowledges who funds him, as opposed to the author of the Telegraph article's organisation.
    " This is higher than HMRC have estimated – they’ve never gone above £3 billion" Direct quote, shall we use the HRMC report now?. I'm not defending the telegraph/author.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Not me, I'll make my previous post clearer He advises them on tax issues, he is funded by them.
    I assume not seeing as he is unequivocally opposed to tax avoidance. You could ask him what form this advice takes. You ought
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    " This is higher than HMRC have estimated – they’ve never gone above £3 billion" Direct quote, shall we use the HRMC report now?. I'm not defending the telegraph/author.
    The HMRC estimate never has been above £3 000 000 000. And the figure Murphy suggest it ought to be is indeed higher than £3 000 000 000. The problem was that lots of people claimed their earnings as under the previous year, a single act of mass tax avoidance. That is why the figures appear to show that there are not many benefits.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CLS94)
    The problem is that since the Tories were in such a rush to scrap it, the figures are only based on the year after it was introduced. In this year, the amount raised was always going to be lower, as people played around with their figures to ensure as much income as possible fell in the previous financial year with a 40% tax rate. Had the scheme been given a proper amount of time, then it would have come far closer to raising the expected revenue with likely only a very minor disincentive effect.
    HRMC predicted 3bn to be raised 1bn was raised. Where is the proof of this large scale tax avoidance. HRMC does not acknowledge it. May I also add that you bring me onto another point, tax avoidance is incentivised by increasing tax rates, this can be expensive to control.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    My view:
    The 5% increase in tax did not lead to a 5% increase in tax revenue, suggesting there was a disincentive effect on 150K+ earners, also it has been suggested that some left the country, taking jobs with them. The amount raised was meager.
    Also allocating wealth to those with the means to distribute capital helps create employment, which we need.
    Your view:?
    EDIT: Lots of figures have be bandying around, mainly from blogs - these figures show conflicting evidence. I suggest that we simply use the official HRMC report which states 1bn raised, a third of the 3bn predicted.
    Yes, you forget that FACTS do not concern some people. Their sole intention is to be seen to be 'attacking the rich'.

    It plays well in their constituencies...

    Which is why taxation only seems to be talked about in percentages, because it hides the true figures.

    If someone on a six figure salary is paying 10% tax whilst the ordinary working man is paying 20%, the first guy is still paying more than the second. 10% of £500k is four times 20% of £25k.

    Wealthy people are subsidising ordinary workers in the same way that ordinary workers constantly complain they are subsidising those on benefits. Cutting the top rate of tax attracts wealthy people to come to, or stay in this country and reduces the likelihood that they will use avoidance schemes to avoid paying the taxes.

    Look at France, they're driving wealthy people out of the country with a 75% tax for anyone earning over 1m Euros, like that actor bloke who pissed on a plane.

    Why not tax them all at 20/30/40% and receive millions, rather than drive them and their money out of France?

    They're not even spending their millions in France now, it's all completely lost to the French economy...

    Pointless, it's nothing to do with equality or fairness, it's just attacking the rich for the sake of it and the morans who advocate doing so would rather cut their noses off to spite their faces...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    HRMC predicted 3bn to be raised 1bn was raised. Where is the proof of this large scale tax avoidance. HRMC does not acknowledge it. May I also add that you bring me onto another point, tax avoidance is incentivised by increasing tax rates, this can be expensive to control.
    It's called common sense. If you can have your income down in one year at 40% tax or the next at 50% tax, which are you going to choose? If they'd kept it even for another year the opportunity for tax avoidance would massively decrease.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CLS94)
    It's called common sense. If you can have your income down in one year at 40% tax or the next at 50% tax, which are you going to choose? If they'd kept it even for another year the opportunity for tax avoidance would massively decrease.
    1.6bn lost. Those acting on this would of been likely to avoid further taxation anyways.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 14, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.