Ponty
pfm Member
Whom they can instruct.
Whom, by law, have to report anything suspicious to HMRC.
Whom they can instruct.
Whom, by law, have to report anything suspicious to HMRC.
While instructive in terms of perspective, I don’t think that’s the clever answer you think it is.
It’s not attempting to be clever, it’s just a fact.
The challenge is this would have to be a global initiative.
To be fair, to my knowledge, you've never been Chancellor of the Exchequer.
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.
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'.
This was being reported on the BBC News and Politics Live yesterday following the release of information regarding Sunak's earnings and tax affairs.True. Sir Kier’s pension arrangements aren’t a good look either. Perfectly legal though, for him at least.
There are, of course, very good reasons why the examples you cite should provide tax incentives: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just to pick up on a random thought here: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.
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.
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.
No Corbyn fan here, but I’ll call bullshit when I see it. Corbyn’s planned taxes were no higher than Thatcher’s IIRC.