The Student Room Group

What's your opinion on tax?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Bornblue
What's your opinion on tax avoidance (at the top) and what should be done about it?


It's a battle we are always going to lose i think. Even if you got an EU tax rate (try getting that past the Tories and Ukip) then you still have Singapore ect.. You can try prosecute individuals but i doubt we'll ever have much success with firms unless we adopt a much more protectionist approach which makes us less dependent on foreign firms for employment.

I do think people need to actually at look which companies are tax avoiding though. People are always trying to levy and tax banks when they actually pay most if not all of their tax, i'm yet to hear about a levy on Google.
Original post by Rakas21
It's a battle we are always going to lose i think. Even if you got an EU tax rate (try getting that past the Tories and Ukip) then you still have Singapore ect.. You can try prosecute individuals but i doubt we'll ever have much success with firms unless we adopt a much more protectionist approach which makes us less dependent on foreign firms for employment.

I do think people need to actually at look which companies are tax avoiding though. People are always trying to levy and tax banks when they actually pay most if not all of their tax, i'm yet to hear about a levy on Google.

I don't like that attitude though because once you say ' it's a battle we can't win' you basically concede ground and accept tax avoidance like a part of life. A bit like the weather, it's annoying but nothing you can do about it.
I don't believe there's nothing we can do.
Work with other countries in a co-ordinated effort to close down the loopholes. In fact why not make it illegal to use these loopholes in the first place? And have heavy fines and prison sentences for those who partake in tax avoidance.
We have to stop letting big corporations bully governments.

And for perspective, it's estimated that over 100 billion a year is lost through tax evasion and avoidance and at least 30-40 billion in avoidance alone.
Benefit fraud costs us 1.2 billion.
We mercilessly go after and penalise the latter whilst looking the other way for the former.
It's absolutely not right.
If we clamp down on tax avoidance then maybe people like you and I wouldn't have to pay so much.
Original post by SotonianOne
That's the point of advocacy of tax choice. Many people feel that areas they approve of are underfunded whereas areas they don't want are overfunded, therefore "taxation by consent" will not occur.

Then again, you're taking it slightly to the extreme. There's hardly anyone who disapproves of psychopath clinics and drains do they? (by the way, sewage systems are part of council taxes not income taxes so there is no tax choice)

This is mainly for those who feel that their money supports a cause that is immoral or grievously inefficient.



No, you are not right. That is why I chose the examples I did. Tax choice requires expenditure to be sexy. Plenty of people will pay to support the NHS despite its inefficiencies. Plenty of people will support Trident even if others are morally opposed. Everyone will want sewers but no-one will choose that it is their taxes paying for them.

Increasingly in the modern world people do not want to pay for the services they use. Many models of individualised payment are breaking down. Hence suppliers, including the state, are resorting to bundling services. Tax choice is the unbundling of services without a way of providing secure funding.
It's an inevitable consequence or byproduct of capitalism. It benefits poor people and the public sector and it hurts large private corporations and wealthy people.
Original post by Bornblue
I don't like that attitude though because once you say ' it's a battle we can't win' you basically concede ground and accept tax avoidance like a part of life.


It is a battle that cannot be won. It is a never-ending war. The advantage that government has is the ability to open up new fronts in that war.

It is not ordained in the Bible that the only way businesses can be taxed is through their profits. Profits taxation is largely the product of the earl half of the 19th century. Taxation existed before income tax and will still exist when income tax is abandoned as obsolete.

With several large corporates it has become meaningless to talk about loopholes. The business is now undertaken in a way that simply doesn't engage with the principles of taxation on profits.

Amazon makes no profit anywhere. Google has businesses that incur costs and businesses that produce revenue. The only place they meet is in the holding company.
Original post by nulli tertius
No, you are not right. That is why I chose the examples I did.


You chose examples that are not affected by tax choice at all ... sewage comes out of council taxes and Debt Interest, Public Order (which mental health institutions come under, not healthcare) and Justice budgets are protected.

Original post by nulli tertius
Tax choice is the unbundling of services without a way of providing secure funding.


Income taxes provide less than half of government revenue in the UK. Income taxes from people in Bracket 1 and 2 provide less than half (45%) of income tax revenue.

That is around 105bn up for tax choice. That's not a lot.
Original post by SotonianOne
You chose examples that are not affected by tax choice at all ... sewage comes out of council taxes and Debt Interest, Public Order (which mental health institutions come under, not healthcare) and Justice budgets are protected.




Income taxes provide less than half of government revenue in the UK. Income taxes from people in Bracket 1 and 2 provide less than half (45%) of income tax revenue.

That is around 105bn up for tax choice. That's not a lot.


The majority of council expenditure is funded by central rather than local government taxes. However, the precise tax which pays for each service is irrelevant. We could fund H-bombs out of Council Tax and street lights out of Air Passenger Duty. A system of tax choice must turn on the type of expenditure not which tax pays for that expenditure.
The idea that tax is theft is frankly ridiculous. Theft doesn't exist independently of the law because property only exists because of the law. Therefore, property is subject to any limitations (e.g. tax) which the law chooses to place on it. In the case of tax, the money was never yours in the first place.
Original post by sr90
I'd rather have the money in my pay cheque to be honest, anyone who says otherwise is lying, but I accept that taxation is needed. 20% is a fair rate for someone on my income bracket (£25-30k), however I think it should be lower or even scrapped entirely if you're on the minimum wage.

Council Tax is the one that really irks me. Ridiculously high rates and the threat of prosecution if you miss 1 payment? K den.


I don't think you would. No NHS cover if you get heart disease/cancer/diabetes/etc, no welfare state if you become too ill to work, you'd have to pay for healthcare like America and that's ridiculously expensive (and insurers will find something to get out of paying you when you become ill).

Without taxes, a balancing of the schooling system would effectively collapse, and the Govt would not be able to stop universities charging however much they like to attend university.
Original post by Protégé
Personally, I like tax, for this country at least. Britain helps its citizens a great deal, the NHS, benefits, schools, etc. Tax money goes to great things like schools and police officers. Although I don't want to fund moronic addicts that need seven organ transplants, I think that it's worth it overall. I don't understand why some people hate tax so much, if you use the NHS and other services then you should imo. I would only think it justifiable for someone not to pay tax if they were some sort of hermit that didn't use any government services whatsoever.


People on here are stupid. Don't listen to them.

If the government didn't do what it does, it would expose the true source of problem. Big financial institutions and big companies.

The elite cannot allow this to happen so they use the government as a scapegoat or buffer between the rich and the poor.

Rich people conceded a small amount of their money in order to appease people.

Everyone that supports tax rate reductions doesn't understand the role of the government. If the government becomes less influencial, big business will be targeted by the masses and capitalism will be demolished.
I'm a believer in high taxes - I think 50% is a good top rate - but I think it's important that a), as much tax money as possible should go on things that are actually going to benefit normal people and b), that now that most people have internet a complete online index of all government spending should be published so that people know what their money goes on.
I agree with a couple of people in here. Tax is worth it in the long run, however since we cannot decide where our tax goes, it can be irritating.

I personally, would give nothing to the royals and most likely would give all of my taxes to the environmental department.
Original post by Rakas21
It's not a tax, it's a reduction in housing benefit. It's just been named as a tax by the left (though it was implemented badly and should go in its current form).



I agree with the need for tax however government is greedy and spends my money on rubbish. Ergo i think taxation should be lowered and completely reformed.


Cool.
Original post by Bornblue
I don't like that attitude though because once you say ' it's a battle we can't win' you basically concede ground and accept tax avoidance like a part of life. A bit like the weather, it's annoying but nothing you can do about it.
I don't believe there's nothing we can do.
Work with other countries in a co-ordinated effort to close down the loopholes. In fact why not make it illegal to use these loopholes in the first place? And have heavy fines and prison sentences for those who partake in tax avoidance.
We have to stop letting big corporations bully governments.

And for perspective, it's estimated that over 100 billion a year is lost through tax evasion and avoidance and at least 30-40 billion in avoidance alone.
Benefit fraud costs us 1.2 billion.
We mercilessly go after and penalise the latter whilst looking the other way for the former.
It's absolutely not right.
If we clamp down on tax avoidance then maybe people like you and I wouldn't have to pay so much.

I swear the only thing you post about is tax avoidance.
Original post by adoremorrissey
I agree with a couple of people in here. Tax is worth it in the long run, however since we cannot decide where our tax goes, it can be irritating.

I personally, would give nothing to the royals and most likely would give all of my taxes to the environmental department.

The royal family is basically a modern economic miracle, they bring in far more than they take out by a ridiculous amount.
Original post by cleverasvoltaire
I swear the only thing you post about is tax avoidance.

You're like the worst stalker ever.
Original post by cleverasvoltaire
The royal family is basically a modern economic miracle, they bring in far more than they take out by a ridiculous amount.


Any time someone argues this they're not using the relevant measure of opportunity cost. You can't just take the entirety of tourism caused by anything to do with royalty and say that's what royalty brings in - you have to compare cheaper alternatives (possibly keeping a simple figurehead rather than people in that position, or even just asking them to live on £40k/year outside of things which are necessary for the maintenance of that income - like upkeep of Buckingham Palace, travel costs etc).

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending