Ponty
pfm Member
Whom, by law, have to report anything suspicious to HMRC.
Tory leadership failure Part V: Rishi ‘Infosys’ Sunak
- Thread starter Tony L
- Start date
Whom, by law, have to report anything suspicious to HMRC.
Dave H.
Revolutionary relativist
While instructive in terms of perspective, I don’t think that’s the clever answer you think it is.
Ponty
pfm Member
It’s not attempting to be clever, it’s just a fact.
Dave H.
Revolutionary relativist
It is a fact, but there’s more than one salient fact.
I take SPT’s point to have been that they could instruct their accountants to, to put it reductively for simplicity, not be dicks. Whereas your response reflects only that they would take the piss as much as they could get away with, and need to be stopped only from going too far.
As I say, instructive in terms of perspective, but missing the point of the post you were replying to.
Richard Lines
pfm Member
Indeed and therein lies the argument for inaction or so any one government would say - such issues need discussing at Davos and resolving - I can't see that happening readily.
It wouldn't be so bad if there was an indication that all these funds everybody knows are squirrelled away were serving some useful function to 'society as a whole'.
I know from Wikipedia that Hunt studies economics and have some experience in business but I'd be intrigued to know just how much he actually understands of economics on a state level.
Regards
Richard
Ponty
pfm Member
The whole discussion originates from a viewpoint that very rich people take the piss with tax. As I’ve stated, the vast majority of people don’t want to evade tax but will legally minimise their exposure. Nothing wrong with this at all. We all do it with pensions, ISA’s etc. Many are happy to accept tax free windfalls when selling their house.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
The problem is that we have an economic ideology that is antithetical to serving society as a whole. We have an accepted orthodoxy in which Government spending is primarily a utility for private enterprise, and is philosophically opposed to spending on public services
paulfromcamden
Baffled
As other members have posted, it's not just about the legal obligation to pay tax.
Look at the Sunaks' response to the story about Akshata Murty's tax affairs last year.
1. As soon as it because public knowledge they suddenly decided her tax situation was "not favourable".
2. She paid £20m in tax that she wasn't legally obliged to.
3. We were told to 'move on'.
4. Sunak announced an "aggressive inquiry" into how this most private of matters was leaked to the hoi polloi.
Look at the Sunaks' response to the story about Akshata Murty's tax affairs last year.
1. As soon as it because public knowledge they suddenly decided her tax situation was "not favourable".
2. She paid £20m in tax that she wasn't legally obliged to.
3. We were told to 'move on'.
4. Sunak announced an "aggressive inquiry" into how this most private of matters was leaked to the hoi polloi.
MikeMA
pfm Member
This was being reported on the BBC News and Politics Live yesterday following the release of information regarding Sunak's earnings and tax affairs.
A Labour spokesperson pointed out, correctly I assume - I don't know for certain but no one challenged it - that Starmer's pension arrangement were put in place when he was DPP by a Tory government as part of wider pension arrangements for High Court judges.
Agree though that it doesn't look too good for him to now criticise the government for putting similar arrangements in place for doctors, unless Labour commit to a wholesale review of pensions and tax.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
There are, of course, very good reasons why the examples you cite should provide tax incentives:
pensions encourage people to save for their future, without such provision the burden on the state would be greater;
ISAs similarly, it is government policy (and for equally sound reasons) to encourage people to save. So tax 'incentives' here actually benefit the state, and society in a very real sense and most probably outweigh the tax foregone;
The house thing is more complex, but is it really a 'capital gain' if you're purchasing another property which you use as your home, in a rising market?
You can no doubt make similar arguments for other public goods, like business investment. The point is, though, that there are areas where people use tax advantageous positions in ways which don't benefit society in a wider sense. I can't offset my travel expenses against tax, not my domestic heating and power, nor any of my other outgoings because I pay PAYE. If I was self-employed, I'd have all manner of ways to set some of my expenditure against tax. I believe and expect that accountants earn the vast bulk of their fees ensuring that these are fully exploited to the limits of what is permissible and that some of this, if not exactly spurious, is, shall we say, not entirely in the spirit of providing these allowances as a public good.
And that's before we get into the artificial schemes, offshoring, tax efficient 'vehicles' and the like whose primary purpose is to minimise tax liability. There's very little 'public good' argument you can deploy to counterbalance these which are, in my experience, almost exclusively at the disposal of the extremely wealthy.
Tony L
Administrator
You seem to be viewing it from your own perspective as (I assume) a very rich person. The rest of us are viewing from the perspective that a corrupt oligarchy as typified by people like Sunak, Johnson, Rees Mogg and countless offshore billionaire Tory donors and press barons *get to influence and define our tax laws*. I really can’t explain it to you any more simply that that. The problem is with who gets to define where the goalposts are and which way the pitch is slanted.
Ponty
pfm Member
I’d support a wholesale review of pensions and tax. It’s far too convoluted and needs simplifying. Who’s going to do it though? I actually disagree with the recent hike in LTA. If you’ve reached this level, you’ve done OK in life and have plenty to live on in retirement. If you want to invest further, nothing to stop you doing so and paying capital gains tax if you make sufficient gains. Nice problem to have. In my eyes, the fact that doctors are retiring at 50 odd tells me their pension benefits are too generous. Very, very few people in the private sector can afford to do that.
Ponty
pfm Member
I do see where you are coming from. There is a global elite who will base themselves wherever is advantageous. That will only change with a global approach, which is highly unlikely. I certainly don’t feel ‘rich’, comfortable yes, but not rich. It’s all relative though, anyone born in the UK is well ahead in the global lottery of life, although many won’t realise it.
paulfromcamden
Baffled
I'd argue the problem is more the constantly shifting goalposts. LTA was £1.8m in 2010 and was steadily reduced by Conservative governments. Nice problem to have - I agree! But it's symptomatic of a pension system that is subject to seemingly arbitrary rule changes. Not helpful when we're expected to plan decades ahead with no idea of what the rules will be next Thursday.
Ponty
pfm Member
Indeed. You can see why people seek to (legally) protect wealth they have built, when a govt can change everything in a heartbeat. The risk of Corbyn becoming PM being a good example. Very difficult for people to make long term life plans.
Barrymagrec
pfm Member
Sorry, did I miss something? I thought you were a Corbyn supporter?
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Just to pick up on a random thought here:
Let's suppose a government comes in and, through socially aware policies and actions, inequality drops; prospects improve for the most disadvantaged; public services improve; public infrastructure improves; costs fall.
This will likely have all sorts of positive multiplying effects which will benefit the whole of society, including the wealthy: crime falls, insurance premiums drop, as does the need for other protection measures like CCTV or security. Roads are less congested, travel becomes more reliable. Private hospitals are less full of the hoi polloi. The need to step over the homeless on entering shops is negligible.
Is this not worth paying a little extra tax for, as Corbyn's policies would probably have asked you to? If not for altrusitic or wider societal reasons, then out of sheer self-interest.
Ponty
pfm Member
All very laudable but suspect most of it would disappear into a quagmire of govt inefficiency. I can’t help thinking we have a higher tax burden now than even Corbyn could dream of, certainly feels like it. Trouble is he just wanted to hammer those who have more than him, which just wouldn’t collect enough revenue to have an impact on wider society.
lordsummit
Moderator
No Corbyn fan here, but I’ll call bullshit when I see it. Corbyn’s planned taxes were no higher than Thatcher’s IIRC.
Ponty
pfm Member
I’m suggesting that the current overall tax burden could actually be higher than Corbyn was proposing.