|
Post by timberwolf on Aug 28, 2024 10:06:28 GMT
Isn’t IT pretty much a tax on those who aren’t organised enough to get round it? (Or on the kids of them) Looks like it needs charging more fairly and widely to me You make a good point there as i bet now there are thousands making the avoidance of IT there new lifes work. Cannot blame them for using all the loopholes and laws available to them especially if its just their home.
|
|
|
Post by redhatter on Aug 28, 2024 10:06:51 GMT
This 22 million pounds black hole that Labour have conveniently created/found. Here's a suggestion, scrap HS2 which for 99% plus of the UK population is irrelevant to them. Use the money left over to sort a legal way for Starmer to send all the illegal arrivals back as they are also costing us billions each year whilst creating nothing for the economy. He moaned about it when he was in opposition, now is his chance to actually do something about it. This is one of the biggest challenges that we as a Country face. Has he visited Dover yet to see for himself what it's like down there? If not, why not? I'm off out to take in some fresh air up in Lyme Park before they put a tax on that The £22 billion (not million) hasn't been conveniently created / found. It was hidden. Not offering or settling pay deals isn't competent government. The problem cannot magically disappear. The result was endless strikes by junior doctors and within the NHS and on the railways. All this has an economic cost. NHS waiting lists have soared to 8 million, including 2.6 million economically active people. The cost of this waiting list is estimated to be £73 billion pounds over a 5 year period, due to the damage it causes to GDP. www.ippr.org/media-office/revealed-73-billion-at-stake-if-government-misses-its-nhs-waiting-list-ambitions-report-finds#:~:text=Getting%20people%20off%20waiting%20lists,reference%20to%20the%20human%20cost. With regard to immigration, firstly no one arriving in our country is "illegal", they have a right to apply for asylum under international law. I think a good solution would be to set up immigration centres in Calais / French ports. Allow migrants to apply for asylum in France and if they are a genuine asylum seeker, offer safe a safe and legal route to the UK. Then allow them to work and contribute to the UK economy from day one. If people then continue to arrive via other routes (having chosen to ignore newly created legal routes), then we would be obliged to process their claim for asylum under international law, but I think it would be fair to make an assumption that they have chosen to enter illegally and ask the question why. I would divert some resources from hotels / accommodation, into extra case officers, so these claims are processed much more quickly and efficiently and the pressure / cost is eased on housing.
|
|
|
Post by stockytwo on Aug 28, 2024 10:23:04 GMT
send all the illegal arrivals back as they are also costing us billions each year whilst creating nothing for the economy. Yeah because rounding up undocumented migrants would be a super easy thing to do and wouldn't actually cost us billions. I also beg to differ that undocumented migrants don't offer anything to the economy. Even if they were paid off the books they still are doing jobs that most people who were born here refuse to do. Not to mention that they are spending money in this country and eventually claiming legitimate residency, starting families and becoming British citizens. I just don't understand why people have a problem with migrants. From my experience all they do is want to come here to work and make a better life for themselves. They are mainly young and therefore net payers into the system rather than takers away. You only have to look at Germany over the years to see how migration has helped fire their economy up to be the biggest in Europe - who would have thought that possible after it lay in ruins in 1945. Getting upset by Migrants is such a snowflakey thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by hedleyverity on Aug 28, 2024 10:27:37 GMT
Isn’t IT pretty much a tax on those who aren’t organised enough to get round it? (Or on the kids of them) Looks like it needs charging more fairly and widely to me You make a good point there as i bet now there are thousands making the avoidance of IT there new lifes work. Cannot blame them for using all the loopholes and laws available to them especially if its just their home. It’s only 4 % paying it, and it’s absolutely not the richest 4%, must be the least effectively charged tax on the books, lessen the rate, broaden the spread looks sensible to me, the money has to come from somewhere, probably better than taking straight from pay packets for the economic health of the nation I’d have thought
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Aug 28, 2024 10:42:30 GMT
The value of my house hasn't gone up by sheer luck, I added a driveway, replaced 2 x lean to additions with proper warm roofs, mainly done myself to keep costs down. Due to circumstance and doing the right thing I was trapped unable to buy for over 12 years meaning a shorter term mortgage with heavy repayments, with interest rates as they are thanks to Truss it means sacrifice to keep said pile of bricks, away games are a rare luxury, the odd short UK break that's it. Hence it seems unfair to be taxed on it after I peck it. I came from a Council House and a single parent family, everything I have was by my hard graft, I didn't go to university as I had to work, nothing was gifted to me. My 27 and 26 year olds like many can't get on the ladder and I'm not in a position to help so when I peck it if it helps them then why not.2nd homes and the likes I get taxing and mansions but not a fairly modest converted bungalow like mine. You're not being taxed on it. Nor is the house being taxed. The people inheriting it are. It's not for you, or I, with respect, to arbitrarily decide when your family or indeed you have paid enough tax in life. I pay 40% tax, but the b*stards take 40% tax on a small annual bonus I earn. Can I avoid that please and pass THAT on to MY children. That's what you're advocating for, some kind of tax-payment by proxy system where they don't have to pay because I have. If I go out of my way to do a second job, perhaps a bit of taxiing, and I earn like £5k they immediately take 40% tax on that to. It's not fair is it? I could do that and pass the lot to my kids, rather than 60% of it. Would you consider that fair? It's broadly the same principle. By the way, you can still help your kids by handing your property down, as can I. But I don't see the idea of paying a modest tax on their windfall towards the health of the country as anathema. This debate (and this isn't a personal attack by any means mate) is somewhat what is wrong with this country. Everyone wants good stuff, no-one wants to pay what needs to be paid to pay for that good stuff. It's a huge part of why we're in the mess we're in.
|
|
|
Post by HTC on Aug 28, 2024 10:59:24 GMT
send all the illegal arrivals back as they are also costing us billions each year whilst creating nothing for the economy. Yeah because rounding up undocumented migrants would be a super easy thing to do and wouldn't actually cost us billions. I also beg to differ that undocumented migrants don't offer anything to the economy. Even if they were paid off the books they still are doing jobs that most people who were born here refuse to do. Not to mention that they are spending money in this country and eventually claiming legitimate residency, starting families and becoming British citizens. I just don't understand why people have a problem with migrants. From my experience all they do is want to come here to work and make a better life for themselves. They are mainly young and therefore net payers into the system rather than takers away. You only have to look at Germany over the years to see how migration has helped fire their economy up to be the biggest in Europe - who would have thought that possible after it lay in ruins in 1945.
it's not quite as straight forward as that
Migrants who come to the country for work / study related reasons are pretty much always net contributors to the economy, working very hard, and often as you say ultimately settling in the UK / gaining citizenship / having families etc. The West Indians driving buses of the 50s / Pakistani mill workers of the 60s / Ugandan Asian small business owners of the 70s / West African students in the 80s / Eastern European workers of the 90s & 00s all fit that model.
The same isn't really true of those coming over to join family, particularly women being married into very patriarchal cultures, or those who arrive seeking asylum.
Some stats below
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Aug 28, 2024 11:10:29 GMT
send all the illegal arrivals back as they are also costing us billions each year whilst creating nothing for the economy. Yeah because rounding up undocumented migrants would be a super easy thing to do and wouldn't actually cost us billions. I also beg to differ that undocumented migrants don't offer anything to the economy. Even if they were paid off the books they still are doing jobs that most people who were born here refuse to do. Not to mention that they are spending money in this country and eventually claiming legitimate residency, starting families and becoming British citizens. I just don't understand why people have a problem with migrants. From my experience all they do is want to come here to work and make a better life for themselves. They are mainly young and therefore net payers into the system rather than takers away. You only have to look at Germany over the years to see how migration has helped fire their economy up to be the biggest in Europe - who would have thought that possible after it lay in ruins in 1945. Apart from the proper far right and racists people have never been bothered about migrants. However its the numbers we are now getting both legally and not so even if you argue about the legality of the latter. Its the cost to there own payment of all taxes they pay, a change to the areas they live in which they have legitimate claims of that never was a real big issue in the past. None come for a benefits only lifestyle which is more of a britsh disease than a one they will bring into the country. However a good percentage will be diverted to a low skill industry without jobs being available and could easily fall into a life of living off benefits. Being mainly men most will be either bringing dependants over or getting married in this country and having the inevitable families making the situation of schools and population figures even worse. Thats before the NHS comes into it thats struggling to cope already. There is a big difference to the problems of 1945 europe to the one of 2024 regarding the economic benefits of mass immigration.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Exile on Aug 28, 2024 11:13:53 GMT
The value of my house hasn't gone up by sheer luck, I added a driveway, replaced 2 x lean to additions with proper warm roofs, mainly done myself to keep costs down. Due to circumstance and doing the right thing I was trapped unable to buy for over 12 years meaning a shorter term mortgage with heavy repayments, with interest rates as they are thanks to Truss it means sacrifice to keep said pile of bricks, away games are a rare luxury, the odd short UK break that's it. Hence it seems unfair to be taxed on it after I peck it. I came from a Council House and a single parent family, everything I have was by my hard graft, I didn't go to university as I had to work, nothing was gifted to me. My 27 and 26 year olds like many can't get on the ladder and I'm not in a position to help so when I peck it if it helps them then why not.2nd homes and the likes I get taxing and mansions but not a fairly modest converted bungalow like mine. You're not being taxed on it. Nor is the house being taxed. The people inheriting it are. It's not for you, with respect, to arbitrarily decide when your family or indeed you have paid enough tax in life. I pay 40% tax, but the b*stards take 40% tax on a small annual bonus I earn. Can I avoid that please and pass THAT on to MY children. That's what you're advocating for, some kind of tax-payment by proxy system where they don't have to pay because I have. If I go out of my way to do a second job, perhaps a bit of taxiing, and I earn like £5k they immediately take 40% tax on that to. It's not fair is it? I could do that and pass the lot to my kids, rather than 60% of it. Would you consider that fair? It's broadly the same principle. By the way, you can still help your kids by handing your property down, as can I. But I don't see the idea of paying a modest tax on their windfall towards the health of the country as anathema. This debate (and this isn't a personal attack by any means mate) is somewhat what is wrong with this country. Everyone wants good stuff, no-one wants to pay what needs to be paid to pay for that good stuff. It's a huge part of why we're in the mess we're in. I'm supposed to be on holiday and getting daggers for being on here... but I pay bloody plenty, the tax system itself needs looking at but how to make it fairer has beaten greater minds than I, no tax on our missing small bonus this year, we missed ebit due to people holding back orders before the election 🙄perhaps it needs spent better rather than pissing money up walls with mad schemes such as getting rid of the nasty immigrants and the likes. Perhaps as interest rates fall the interest on the national debt falls and they have more to spend although I imagine a lot will be tied to high fixed rates. As for the 2nd income tax you ain't comparing apples with apples. We also pay increasing amounts of Council Tax for poorer services but that is another conversation entirely around another broken system.
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,306
|
Post by Mozzer on Aug 28, 2024 11:15:44 GMT
A critical assessment of migrants' contribution is GDP per capita. There's more work to be done on that, but so far the work that has been done shows very little impact in that regard. I've not seen Lee Anderson tweet anything about GDP per capita yet though, so until he does we're probably best assuming that immigrants cost the country billions, wank on about illegal immigrants in a broad, non-specific way that fails to acknowledge that most migrants are 'legal', demand our country back and just leave it there...
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Aug 28, 2024 11:24:48 GMT
Again they have made this pile by shear accident and not some devious plan of their own. If you live in the SE yes the value of your property has gone sky high but so will there new one purchased unless they move out of the region. This wasn’t a point about earned/unearned income; it was a point about defining the middle class by whether you pay CGT and/or your children will be liable for IHT. In the case of the latter, it’s already been pointed out that only 4% of people leave an estate valuable enough to attract IHT, which doesn’t scream households where the adults are professionals, semi-professionals, and/or lower-to-middle managerial level workers. Once again, we’re back to the dog-whistle nonsense from the election of Starmer coming for your taxes. Yes, yours Colin. Yours specifically, Colin. Not anybody else’s: yoursObjectively, the Winter Heating Allowance thing will have a pretty widespread impact but the as has already been said, it’s not just little old widows in council flats who get it; it’s ex-pat retirees with Spanish villas. A line had to be drawn and it’s hard to see where else to draw it. But defining the ‘middle class’ as the top 4% on the wealth scale? Please…Worth noting that if you bought a home in the south east 30 years ago, and you’re a single parent having gone through a divorce, a modest home bought on a modest salary back then can still attract a wedge of inheritance tax. Married couples shared allowances are a different matter. I’m generally in favour of inheritance tax. I do, however, think it’s a shame that the properly rich will always find a way around it (see also the royal family) while others who have simply bought a family home will always pay. That 4% figure is expected to rise significantly in coming years.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Aug 28, 2024 11:26:03 GMT
You're not being taxed on it. Nor is the house being taxed. The people inheriting it are. It's not for you, with respect, to arbitrarily decide when your family or indeed you have paid enough tax in life. I pay 40% tax, but the b*stards take 40% tax on a small annual bonus I earn. Can I avoid that please and pass THAT on to MY children. That's what you're advocating for, some kind of tax-payment by proxy system where they don't have to pay because I have. If I go out of my way to do a second job, perhaps a bit of taxiing, and I earn like £5k they immediately take 40% tax on that to. It's not fair is it? I could do that and pass the lot to my kids, rather than 60% of it. Would you consider that fair? It's broadly the same principle. By the way, you can still help your kids by handing your property down, as can I. But I don't see the idea of paying a modest tax on their windfall towards the health of the country as anathema. This debate (and this isn't a personal attack by any means mate) is somewhat what is wrong with this country. Everyone wants good stuff, no-one wants to pay what needs to be paid to pay for that good stuff. It's a huge part of why we're in the mess we're in. As for the 2nd income tax you ain't comparing apples with apples. We also pay increasing amounts of Council Tax for poorer services but that is another conversation entirely around another broken system. The point I'm trying to clumsily make - you don't think that THAT precise tax that your children may have to pay is fair. I can think of numerous taxes I pay that I don't think are entirely fair (but I'm happy to pay them of course, because I'm a communist, according to some) such as the example I gave. Another one, I've paid tax towards the NHS all my working life - I've never used it personally. I pay significant sums of money to fund private health care also. Can I have my taxes back please? After all, it's a service I've never used. Why should I pay? I can give the amount saved to my kids because I probably won't have property to hand down to them (because I need to make it work for me to retire...I never had the privilege of any inheritance being received - everything I have personally I have fully earnt, paid tax on, etc.). And so forth.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Aug 28, 2024 11:27:46 GMT
This wasn’t a point about earned/unearned income; it was a point about defining the middle class by whether you pay CGT and/or your children will be liable for IHT. In the case of the latter, it’s already been pointed out that only 4% of people leave an estate valuable enough to attract IHT, which doesn’t scream households where the adults are professionals, semi-professionals, and/or lower-to-middle managerial level workers. Once again, we’re back to the dog-whistle nonsense from the election of Starmer coming for your taxes. Yes, yours Colin. Yours specifically, Colin. Not anybody else’s: yoursObjectively, the Winter Heating Allowance thing will have a pretty widespread impact but the as has already been said, it’s not just little old widows in council flats who get it; it’s ex-pat retirees with Spanish villas. A line had to be drawn and it’s hard to see where else to draw it. But defining the ‘middle class’ as the top 4% on the wealth scale? Please…Worth noting that if you bought a home in the south east 30 years ago, and you’re a single parent having gone through a divorce, a modest home bought on a modest salary back then can still attract a wedge of inheritance tax. Married couples shared allowances are a different matter. I’m generally in favour of inheritance tax. I do, however, think it’s a shame that the properly rich will always find a way around it (see also the royal family) while others who have simply bought a family home will always pay. That 4% figure is expected to rise significantly in coming years. Loopholes that can be closed. Just needs the will to do it. Easier said than done in this nation of serfs that we are.
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Aug 28, 2024 11:43:25 GMT
Worth noting that if you bought a home in the south east 30 years ago, and you’re a single parent having gone through a divorce, a modest home bought on a modest salary back then can still attract a wedge of inheritance tax. Married couples shared allowances are a different matter. I’m generally in favour of inheritance tax. I do, however, think it’s a shame that the properly rich will always find a way around it (see also the royal family) while others who have simply bought a family home will always pay. That 4% figure is expected to rise significantly in coming years. Loopholes that can be closed. Just needs the will to do it. Easier said than done in this nation of serfs that we are. You mean the same loopholes that the mega rich have always been using to void paying as much tax as they should. Something far more important an issue than inheritance tax for the joe who has been left their parents ex council house which by sheer accident its worth has gone through the roof from the purchase price. Mind you you know the cap doffers would do little or nothing to raid the wealth of the monarchy as the tourist industry would be non existent without them.
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Aug 28, 2024 11:45:03 GMT
Worth noting that if you bought a home in the south east 30 years ago, and you’re a single parent having gone through a divorce, a modest home bought on a modest salary back then can still attract a wedge of inheritance tax. Married couples shared allowances are a different matter. I’m generally in favour of inheritance tax. I do, however, think it’s a shame that the properly rich will always find a way around it (see also the royal family) while others who have simply bought a family home will always pay. That 4% figure is expected to rise significantly in coming years. Loopholes that can be closed. Just needs the will to do it. Easier said than done in this nation of serfs that we are. I believe that Starmer and Reeves will do what they can to close the loopholes, I'm probably being naive but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, however if and when they do that they can expect all out attack from the media.
|
|
|
Post by bigmartin on Aug 28, 2024 11:47:43 GMT
Loopholes that can be closed. Just needs the will to do it. Easier said than done in this nation of serfs that we are. You mean the same loopholes that the mega rich have always been using to void paying as much tax as they should. Something far more important an issue than inheritance tax for the joe who has been left their parents ex council house which by sheer accident its worth has gone through the roof from the purchase price. Mind you you know the cap doffers would do little or nothing to raid the wealth of the monarchy as the tourist industry would be non existent without them. Yep. Simple start - make all forms of tax avoidance, tax evasion instead. That would see Corporates like KPMG and the like, with their images to uphold, rethink their immoral business practices.
|
|