Lorna Bourke: sticking to my guns on taxation

What gets me is that my small company had its corporation tax rate INCREASED to 21% whereas the huge multinationals had theirs REDUCED to 28%.

"At the moment the situation is grossly unfair." Couldn't agree more.

Lorna

One needs to consider the cost/benefit ratio of additional tax collection. As long as there are significant benefits it is wortwhile.

However it should be recgnised that black economies exist in all countries and tax avoiding methods are used in all countries by companies.

It would be interesting to develop your article by establishing the take of other nations from the average person as opposed to companies and wealthy persons, and the tax collection methods they use, as well as some comparison of their black economies.

Ratios of the Tax from the average person/Companies and wealthy persons, and percentages relating to percentages of GDP e.g. Average persons Tax take/GDP and Companies and wealthy persons Tax take/GDP would be useful.

Another useful ratio would be the cost of investigation collection/moneys collected by Revenue Depts of different nations.

Those types of ratios should tell us how we stand internationally.

Some of us alrerady feel we are taxed to death.

"Some of us alrerady feel we are taxed to death."

We are.

And beyond.

Black economy is fueled by high earners not wanting to pay vat especially in london and surrounding counties also companies not wanting to pay proper wages and comply with health and safety issues. In essence people who regard themselves as law abiding citizens and make laws for other people.

First start by looking at declared earnings and expense claims by Members of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, Local Authority Councillors, Senior Personnel in Local Govt. Thereafter (if there is any time left) go for the petty cash tax evaders!

If we want to get out of the current mess we need to cut the level of taxes paid by industry and the individual. Make this country a worthwhile place to invest in tye private sector will haul us out of the recession. At the same time we need to cut the level of benefits paid to the public sector. We simply can't support the level of benefits they continue to receive. In case anyone is wondering the US is also coming to the same conclusion.

As for tax and benefits cheats and immigration issues we only have ourselves to blame - part of the nationalision programme for any aspirant citizens is a test on all the benefits they will be able to claim once ligit. Is it any wonder everyone is queing up in France?

People whining about taxation being 'fair' and making distinctions between different types employees, companies etc miss the point; it is simply a way of a government raising money to pay for things and is the equivalent of having somebody (legally unfortunately) put a gun at your head and demand money. Tax has no moral status - it is a legal thing. Paying more (or less) tax doesn't make me a better/worse person, it just means that my legal obligations are different. it's not like I have a choice. The law needs to be applied equally, irrespective of whether we are talking about 'poor' people, 'fat cats', or companies. To the extent there is a practical issue, it ought to be based on how much extra revenue can be raised; my guess would be that getting £10 from a million people would be better than £1 million from one.

How many people in the UK are higher rate (I mean 40%) tax payers? I have seen a number of articles claiming that only 10% of the population are in the higher rate tax band. Can anyone confirm/deny this? I have doubts because there are organisations in the City where it is difficult to find basic rate tax payers!

Fulminator - I disagree with your assertion that tax has no moral status; the roads that you drive on, the doctor that your child sees when he or she is ill, the radio and TV that you enjoy and all the other benefits of living in a developed country have to be paid for, and it is immoral for some to enjoy those benefits without paying for them in some way.

The way that we pay for things is called tax, and the only alternative is some form of pay as you go, which would mean that everyone pays for what they use regardless of their means. I can't imagine that many would call that moral or ethical.

An amusing and ironic take on taxes in the US:

http://www.thedailycrux.com/content/3447/Government_Stupidity

Mr Grumpy (love the name)

We are in danger of straying into fundamental political critiques at this point, but it is one thing to agree that taxes are required, quite another to assume that they have a moral status. Dealing with 'free riders' is an unsolved issue - one practical way is through tax, but being useful doesn't make it moral (or immoral come to that). At the risk of being controversial, why shouldn't people pay for things irrespective of their means? As far as I know, no one suggesting that poorer people should get Ferraris at a discount -how do you decide the products outside of Ferraris where such largesse applies, and why would such a decision carry weight with others?

Anonymous claims to have met no one in the City who doesn't pay higher rate tax. Funnily enough, the cleaners and security guards are not driving around in BMWs, and it may be a surprise to some Londoners to realise that the rest of the country exists and actually consists of the majority of the population.

If NI takes about 94 billion as stated, and half is paid by individuals (you state 50 billion as half of 94 billion, doesn't inspire much confidence) ; if companies pay 33 billion; if companies pay half of NI (50 boillion on your figures) then your assessment doesn't stack up at all.

I guess what you actually mean is that cmpanies pay 33 billion in corporation tax, plus 1/2 of VAT (33 billion approximately) + 47 billion in non reclaimable VAT + several billions i fuel duty .... then we have corporations paying around 125 billion. Additionally the Oil industry pays tax on oil produced (about 17 billion I think?).

Finally companies pay most people's wages, from whic the govenrmen tgets its tax revenues.

Fairness is an interesting concept but your arguments are at best extemely simplistic.

The black economy undoubtedly exists, but peopel who earn money from it ultimately pay taxes through VAT and other indirect taxes so the losses are far less than you seem to understand.

Where business is concerned you take no account of the burden of pointless regulation and the fact that businesses have to pay high compliance costs in managing their buzinesses - in effect they are unpaid tax collectors and bureaucrats.

Overall the article raises some valid points but is very flawed, and the dishonest way the statistics are used are more redolent of a left-wing polemic than an objective examination of facts and conclusion.

Lorna, you started a huge debate, and while I still stand by my earlier comment about you researching more to avoid thoughtless statements, it is appreciated that such things bring out the thoughts and feelings of others, however irrelevant and ill-considered some may be.

When I started my small business back in the '70s my costs, including tax, amounted to just under a third of my turnover; as the business grew and I employed people this crept up to nearly half, (excluding employee wages); when I decided to close the business these costs had escalated to nearly 70 percent of my turnover. These additional costs related directly to legislation that had turned me from being a business owner to someone whose prime role had become more like a Compliance Officer - Health and Safety, VAT, Environment laws, sick pay provider, maternity/paternity pay and all these meant that what had been a profitable business that was supposed to provide for me and my family had now put me as the lowest paid person in the business as I was having to work more than 80 hours a week.

By contrast, a colleague who "saw the light" in the 80's moved to the USA. Here he was granted less administration costs, fewer rules and the rest to allow him to build the business. He is now a multi millionaire and his one-man-band has grown to be a large employer that can afford to employ people to comply with the much stricter laws that larger businesses must comply with.

Oh, and that's without mentioning Class 4 !

Sorry - I meant to say PLEASE DON'T TAX US LITTLE GUYS ANY MORE!!!!

In the eary 80 s vat was 8% now come january it will be 20% this is an incentive to avoid the tax. Are we not now appraching the laws of diminishing returns.? Would you pay someone £20 in cash and save £4. Well how about £30000, and save £6000 ? To people on small incomes these are very significant sums of money. I am affraid the black economy will always be with us until tax is reduced

The only truly fair and unavoidable system of Tax is the one adopted by some of the eastern European countries. i.e. a high untaxed allowance followed by a flat rate for everything of say 20p in the pound and no other allowances. The same principle but with different figures could be adopted for Companies as they are already treated as individuals. The only people who won't like it will be the accountants and the majority of the inland revenue staff all of whom will have nothing to do. How's this for a conclusion Neil.!!

The incentive for cleaners etc. to declare tax just isn't there.

Myself and my partner decided to setup a small cleaning company a couple of years ago, on the side of our main employment and we were completely above board with the HMRC. We made just over £1000 pre-tax profit in a year which helped us out with bills. We paid our self-assessed tax on this income - however we were stung for £200 for not filing a 'partnership return' - something we were never informed to do... the tribunal agreed with the HMRC that we owed this. We paid it and filed another return. The return we filed duplicated the details on our personal assessments and we owed no extra tax.

We have closed this small business as it was too much hastle - had we not declared our earnings, we would have 'been in the wrong' / 'criminals'... i can understand completely why people decide not to declare, even with the best of intentions

I think this article is part of the Vince Cable Cuckoo land school of economics. I think if you look back over the many outbursts from Vince since the beginning of the credit crisis, you will see a pattern of fitting in with populist anti-establishment sentiment, accented with a variety of speeches that often contradict the speech he made previously.

He is what is commonly referred to as a Barrack Room Lawyer. He is prone to bouts of heady self importance that unleash complete drivel and prove that he is the only person who truly believes in his lofty ambitions of statesmanship. Lorna please take note!

So, getting that off my chest, I return to the notion that Taxing everyone to oblivion is the way forward. Perhaps we should consider the counter argument of placing a fair tax on the nation instead of the ridiculously complicated structures we have in place at the moment. How about making Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax and VAT all 20%? How about getting rid of the cruelly unfair car tax and replacing it with tax on petrol so that the more you use your car, the more you pay with the added incentive still there to buy an economical car. How about abolishing Corporation Tax altogether and reverting to a tax on company profits at say, 20% again? How about 20% Tax on a second property?

How about allowing people to opt out of paying the proportion of NI that goes towards Teeth, Health and Pensions on the basis that there is a mandatory private provision contribution in place that would have an insurance backed safety net in the event of unemployment etc.

Before someone comes in with the "How about the poor unemployed single parent with umteen kids etc etc", remember that I never proposed abolishing welfare. I also realise that this is a simplistic approach and that the 20% may need to be 21% but the point is, a fair tax for all will actually make people feel it is OK to pay in the main. I can only liken this to downloading music. If an album costs £3.00, then by general consensus, all my friends and I will pay this willingly. If the charge is £10.00, then I am afraid that the general consensus is not to pay and instead copy.

What ticks off every one who is successful is the continual bleating of the "It's not fair brigade." Why on earth should someone who works hard and takes the risk of starting up a business etc have to hand over all their earnings to a body of people who have the superior attitude of thinking they know where best to spend our money?

A good idea having a flat rate, but there would still be a minority who would spend their time figuring out ways to avoid paying any taxes. The only way to solve the current problem's is to reduce the number of benefit claimants, this includes pensioners.

Sending any immigrant back to where they came from once they have ceased to be productive, could make a big dent in the housing / hospital bed/ care provision costs. They would still be paid their UK pension but be spending it in their 3rd world home increasing GDP there. Everybody is a winner.

I think a point has been missed. Lorna's article and comments made so far fails to recognise that HMRC are not oblivious to what could be going on. They employ experts in behaviour profiling, and have developed systems which analyse irregular or irrational financial patterns. They also employ teams of newspaper readers who scrutinise the small ad's pages to identify individuals who employ or who are employed on a casual, part time, or self-employed basis.

If these enquiries and tests result in HMRC becoming suspicious of the financial status of an individual or company, there most likely response will be to send them an assessment of tax which they calculate to be more than is likely to be accurate. It then falls to the recipient to disprove HMRC's claim.

If someone is determined to be dishonest they have got to be pretty clever. Gardiners, cleaners, nannies, etc. are not the brightest of candidates to defraud the taxman.

Hello all,

We are over taxed by a considerable amount,our greed culture stems from Maggie Thatcher and her policies of to get up the ladder step on someone!!

It was her who sold off our national companies which are all now owned by foreign companies who reap the rewards,she sold our state owned companies which we all had a very small share in to shareholders who actually bought what in theory they already owned.

Banks used to be happy and thriving by just paying interest on deposits and charging a bit more to lend and not paying anything on current accounts and the difference paid staff quite well and produced a safe profit.

You never had to pay £900-£2000 just to arrange a mortgage,also look at how much over the base rate we are all paying,not content with a couple of percent they have to charge 6-10% over base rate and then they wonder why people cannot afford the repayments.

The whole country has become a get rich society no matter what,envy,greed has all set in and it all stems from Margret Thatcher.

This is not a political rant as Tony Blair(the pompous twit)was just as bad only he showed his pearly whites at every opportunity and preached "New Labour"what he never told us was he meant new Tories.

Now the coalition is going down the same route with two leaders who will do or say anything to get or stay in power.

It will take years and years to reverse Maggies greed culture and thats if it can ever be reversed,politicians should lead by example so a major change in their attitudes would help,so forget about going back a few years for their expenses,go back 15years and make the likes of Tony Blair hand back hundreds of thousands since he has built a property fortune from expenses as have many others.

Let Mp's get their house in order then they can start chasing everyone else for their taxes.

Sorry to go on and yes this has become a rant, BUT TRUE>

Thankyou all

Well I have to congratulate you Lorna for taking the time to read the response to your previous article and then taking the time and effort to produce further debate. A lesson their to many authors who just take the money for writing offhand and move off to the next money-making excersise.

Unfortunately, the tax system in this country will not change in the foreseeable future. Those who have the ear of those who actually have the power to make serious and marked changes to the tax system do not include cleaners or the like. Hence, the tax system will only favour those who can afford it. A simple look at how 90% of the worlds wealth is deployed in 10% of the worlds population is an easy demonstration of why most of the population get a raw deal

Until the man who makes the bolt realises he is as powerful as the man who sells it, we are stuck with the present day capatilist model.

Paul Gill

The accounts show that Nationalised industry COST the Taxpayer because they were inefficient and nobody cared. I was never a fan of MT but history shows she did more good for the UK than any in recent times. Unions did more harm than good and that is how union leaders became as corrupt as politicians.

A bit generalist I know BUT TRUE!

From Lorna's article "How much do companies pay? Just £33.3 billion in 2009-2010. If the coalition is serious about creating a fair society and everyone paying their share, then clearly companies, many of which have turnovers in excess of a small country, have got to pay more. At the moment they pay nothing like their fair share."

To add to Lorna's statistics. Of the 700 largest businesses in the UK, 50 of them (seven per cent) contribute over two thirds of the total Corporation Tax. Around 220 businesses pay no Corporation Tax and a further 210 businesses each paid less than £10 million.

Maggie came just in time to save this country from drifting in to a banana republic . The unions were on the brink of bringing us all down. !3 years of this useless dishonest bunch of commies nearly did the same. Just hope Cameron has the backbone to see these cuts through.

Don't you just love the way that arguments about paying tax produce self-serving arguments about why tax is not a moral issue. The well heeled who think it is fine to live on a pay as you go basis (which inevitably leaves the poor with less access to services) forget that it is only the infrastructure provided by an organised society that allows them to earn their comfotable incomes. To accept these incomes without any payback to society at large puts you in the same category as Robber Barons. And please don't use the hoary argument the benefit provided by just doing your job is sufficent payback in itself.

Statement like this make me even more MAD! Where was all the people who were loosing their homes due to sub-pime? No where to be seen not until all the hysteria started? It does not make any sense and is more down to the scaremongering the media do. Take our Reverend book burner never would have heard of him if it was not for the meia.

The banks have the power and they are behind this as are the Rothchilds and the rest.

Again what the banks got paid was the equivilant of £250,000.00 to EVERY household what would we have done with THAT?

If you want to save money EVERY government department has money to get rid of at the end of the finacnial year they spend it on ANYTHING to get rid and this happens everywhere if the system was changed there would be no reason for cuts and no companies getting really "fat" rich out of the taxpayer you ony have to look at the MOD for public spending cuts.

A response to Paul Gill

If you believe that Maggie Thatcher single handedly changed the culture of this country and that prior to 1979 all was altruism and social cohesiveness you either have a very selective memory or are too young to know any different.

I hear this populist reinvention of history every time more than a couple of idealistic rose tinted liberals get together - particularly in front of a TV camera.

First of all the 1970's, which I remember all to clearly, were dominated by the most divisive selfish behaviour you can imagine. Every single group of organised people queued up at the trough to make sure their pay claim was bigger than everyone else's and as far ahead of inflation as possible regardless of the fact that aggressive pay claims were a major factor in driving that very inflation.

Old people on savings and fixed pensions got absolutely crucified by the double digit inflation organised labour perpetuated. Union leaders held the country to ransom just because they could. Undertakers left corpses unburied, other public sector workers left rubbish to pile up in the streets, Briitish car workers happily indulged in restrictive practices to produce cars that were a byword for unreliability and corrosion.

Print workers in Fleet street claimed double or triple time for Saturday night/Sunday morning and got their mates to clock them in while they lay in bed. I stood for hours on railway platforms due to cancelled trains after their drivers decided to have a "duvet day" at the tax payer's expense. All this under a Labour government.

Maggie Thatcher got elected for a reason..

The history of humanity as far back as we have records (even those before 1979!) is the history of people abusing power for their own interests whenever they could - the very definition of selfishness. As they still do today whether they are investment bankers or public sector unions.

However history also shows that we get marginally nicer as we get more prosperous. There has never been a prosperous economy that was not a market economy. Be careful what you wish for.

It wasn't margaret thatchers polices that provided prosperity it was North Sea Oil.

Margaret thatchers polices were the policies of greed.

Prosperity was financed by North Sea oil she also doubled vat taxed hundred of things which had never been taxed before.

They don't have North Sea oil now.

Its much harder to avoid tax at the point of sale than tax on income. The clever bit comes in balancing the levels. Unfortunately politicians ,some even with an economic background, are mostly driven by ideology and prejudice with a fair dose of self preservation built in so not surprisingly they rarely get it right.

I blame all this debate on the fact that the Liberals have been given far too much air time recently, particularly Vince cable

He suggests that the Unions are less of a threat to the the UK economy than the Banks? Well,if your view is that the Unions are an irrelevance, this might possibly be true. Or perhaps if all the bankers went on strike and were employed by the Civil Service, maybe? Oh, hang on a minute, I've got it now. How stupid of me. The bankers forced the Labour Government to spend money we didn't have, caused the blow out of the BP rig and rigged the last election to ensure that the Liberals didn't get a majority.

It is about time that someone reminded Vince that the Liberals did not WIN the last election and that his point of view is marginal and down right ridiculous. If he pops up to Scotland, he stands a good chance of a free place in a Nursing Home!

As for the tired old cliches about Thatcher. Well, It's great to have a hook to hang a coat on but not every coat in the closet. Fact is, we needed someone to arrest control from Unions and yes, North Sea Oil did pave the way for the resulting recovery but let us not forget that Thatcher prevented the unions from sinking that ship too. The welfare state has taken away the need for people to work for a living and has produced generations of people who think that the world owes them a living.

One other thing bb42; we do infact still have North Sea Oil. I notice that you didn't manage add a sneering remark about how Brown managed to squander the proceeds of this nations wealth whilst in power!

Lorna ...there is no way that people earning a few cash pounds or the people who pay them , will come to the tax party , while the seriously rich use clever accountants to cheat the tax system . And why should they .

If we had a simpler system where top to bottom people paid a fixed percentage on all monies earned in the UK , no matter where residing , and the less well off were taken out of tax completely at say under £20,000 , we would be getting somewhere

A response to Caviet Emtied and a few others,

I remember those days very well as I was born in 1956,only 2or3 nights ago they spoke of Maggies greed culture on Tv so its not just my imagination .

In my defense its a comment box,not the life and times of the tories.

Of course she did some good,the unions were ridiculous,Fords would go on strike over toilet rolls,or lose 6weeks pay just to get a shilling or 5p as its known now an hour extra,however if Fords had too many cars unsold in their carparks they would instigate a strike just to save paying the workers,did you know that??

Yes Maggie did some good(minimal though) but as with every Tory she sold off everything state owned,school playing fields etc and tells the country how much money is in the coffers,I agree Labour carried on with this but she did start this trend wether you like it or not.

Also yes the railways etc were in a poor state but that was down to management,why oh why cant/couldn't governments(any) appoint a head to the railways or british gas or whatever state company outside of the political circles and give that person a 10yr contract with no interference unless they were failing in which case his contract would be cancelled,the biggest downfall is when whichever party is in power appoints someone (an mp)to be in charge of something that he knows absolutely NOTHING about,then when he or she fails they appoint someone else who knows nothing,then there'e a general election and a shuffle,no wonder those state companies failed.

We need a person to run a company and when there is a change of government it does not affect that person or company.

I would not vote for any party as they are all incompetent and only out for what they can get while in power and then the after dinner speech circuit when they have finished milking the expenses gravy train.

We do need to tax some of these directors more it is immoral to pay some directors salaries in the millions with bonuses in the millions even when the companies fail,or in the case of our banks they end up bancrupt and bailed out losing trillions yet the next year they make a few million and start paying bonuses!!! When they have cleared the trillions of losses then they are making money again,after all it was our money that bailed them out and now its our money(higher fees and rates)that are rebuilding their balance sheets,very clever if you ask me,I wish I could borrow money from someone,then get them to pay it back and give me an income and a bonus from it, Bankers should be pronounced with a silent B and a loud W.

On another subject..... We need to close our borders for a while,NO assylum seekers etc get out of the EU and only be in a common market if possible,get rid of mep's they cost us a fortune more than mp's and what good are they?do to other countries what they do to us,ie if we pay duty or visa's to enter that country do the same to them.

Lastly if you want this country to prosper get back to manufacturing QUALITY products that the world wants as the Germans do,a country that was devasted after the war which we helped get back on its feet only for it to overtake us !!.

All these towns that have lost their industries but still have the factories get them building solar and wind plants also bio diesel plants because we all know its going to come so why not get in now and give our workers something to do and you will reap the taxes etc from them and not have to pay millions in benefits,the world wants these things at the right price.

That was because the original debate was about taxes,you all have a good day and nice talking to you .

Paul.

You are absolutely right. They mention it on TV all the time. That doesn't mean it's accurate. Not many BBC presenters vote Tory.

Maggie put pressure on loony left councils to cut their costs. They sold playing fields in preference to cutting spending.

The bottom line is most politicians take the line of least resistance appealing to popular opinion by spending or promising to spend other people's money. Hence the state of our public finances. All Maggie actually managed was to temporarily stop that process by holding public spending level in real terms for 11 years.

City's like Sheffield have never recovered from the loony left republic of South Yorkshire anti business council of the 70's. My worry is that Vince Cable will do the same for the entire UK!

Give me an enterprising, prosperous, reasonably fair country any day over one that strangles prosperity and the risk taking and innovation required to create it in a futile attempt to create perfect fairness and the elimination of all risk.

Lorna

Not so long ago Andrew Walton-Green wrote in, and I responded.

Cannot see his response or mine under anonymouus any more.

Why?

Annoyed.

Hi All,just in response to some of the comments posted,

If you believe that maggie was so good in breaking the unions because of their grip on the railways etc etc why hasn't anything about the railways got better??? Fares up, To many operators all making you pay confusingly different amounts when you change from one network to another, Staffing down,Reliability down, cleanliness hit and miss, safety on the rails and on the platforms down, No staff in the station(comes under staff down I suppose).

We all know about BT and British Gas etc all are incompetent and highly overpriced, Taxes up,Vat up,So remind me what good she did????????????

Vince Cable and the rest of the Liberals will say or do anything to get/stay in power,the truth is most have no experience and are in cuckoo land.

The Tories would of said or done anything prior to the election especially the ones from 10-20 years ago.As for the newer generation pompous twits and expense fiddlers.

Labour,what a bunch of backstabbers,appointing a new leader, Dianne Abbot the biggest mouth in London and her fellow male contestants,what a bunch,if the Tories stay in power it will only be because of the state ot the opposition and nothing else,not on Tory/Lib achievements.

I feel sorry for Gordon Brown,not now because he must be happy to be away from these backstabbers,Blair included,but in the lead up to the election,I believe he was the best person to get us out of our predicament and I think the majority of British people will after the Budget.

Do away with percentage pay rises for 10 years so the middle to lower paid can catch up to the higher paid,if the head of a bank or company for example only, earns 5 million cut his pay by 2 million and share that amoungst his middle to lower paid staff which would probably give most of them subject to the size of the company of course a 20% pay rise giving them more money to spend and helping the economy,This could be a one off thin to try and bring lower earners in line.

Lastly,this is approximate and only to get some of you interested and responding,a working class person. For every £1 we earn 30p will be tax& ni,17.5p vat,5p council tax,5p fuel duty, .5p car tax etc etc, so they are finally left with 20-25p if their lucky to buy food,pay rent/mortgage,buy clothes etc never mind about save!! Don't these people deserve lower taxes or higher pay???

Have a good evening everyone

Well said caveat. Thatcher made it possible for enterprise. It is the people that did the rest.

Now we are back to the big unions, but it is not in industries that are productive, but leeches, in most instances. Local authority, civil service, welfare for the indolent, over bloated NHS.

They are striking to maintain their unfair blood extraction privileges and to debilitate the patient unto the point of death.

Lorna you have swallowed the weasel words of the politicians.We used to live in a free democracy where the Govt were allowed to raise tax for essential duties done at state level ,like defence of the realm and more recently the NHS.. This has deteriorated to the point where the Govt are now taking over 50% of your gross income one way or another. This is neither democracy or freedom of the individual. Your choices have been effectively confiscated by the state. The Govt and Civil Service have a track record of gross negligence in getting value for our money. It is so appalling that it is your solemn duty to pay as little tax as is legally possible to counteract the grotesque waste.

Now turning to the deficit. My solution is to ring fence it by setting up a special set of taxes if necessary to completely pay it off over the next 30 years. . The revenue for this to be controlled by an independant commission with a qualified staff from the private sector to handle it. The Govt must be restricted in any future spending with major cuts in their activities. The services that need doing they can put out to the private sector. The state has to be shrunk or we will go bankrupt like the old Soviet Union Get rid of the meglomaniac politicians who think they can control the world. Their interference makes the Black Economy grow bigger and bigger.

Read below for a simple reason why NO MORE TAXES. We are very close to the situation described below by Dr Rogers in 1931. Civilised societies and their citizens accept that a certain level of taxation is necessary to fund schools, hospitals, old age pensions etc BUT there comes a point where those who work start to see taxation as legalised robbery and the level of taxation as immoral. Enterprising people feel crushed and taken for granted.

This causes the resentment and divides the Society. The UK is very close to this situation in many areas. E.g The private sector nolonger sees public sector pensions as a reward for dedicated public service but instead sees their taxes funding a cushy retirement for featherbedded public employees.

Due to the massive increase in benefits under New Labour the Welfare state is nolonger seen by many workers as a safety need for the ill, elderly or truely jobless but resented by many as massive state hand outs of their hard paid taxes to the feckless and workshy.

Read below Lorna, more taxes will divide this country

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

2.

Local council management pay is ridiculously high for the return we all get,they increase council tax stating they have overspent yet under close scruitiny they have wasted millions on things no one wants except them,sounds like the old grease my palm to me,

Havering council spent between £100,000 and £200,000 concreting over nice green roundabouts just to put some gravel on them and a few big boulders a bit like a mini stonehenge,their response was it saves on cutting the grass and it looks nice,there was no consultation whatsoever and most of the council bosses do not live anywhere near the roundabouts,so its either the greasy palm or how can we waste the council tax revenue and get the budgets up therefore lets increase council tax.

How much has been wasted on all these big wheelie bins?only to be told if we break or lose them we have to pay!! I didn't want them in the first place,ive got 4 on my drive which is a third of my car!!

We need to get to grips with waste and unfortunately expensive quangos from any party is not the answer common sense is.

Governments,councils,business's etc need to stop,think do I NEED this, where was it made and is it value for money, this will help the UK and everyone in it,

Thanks all

In response to Anonymous1 regarding your missing comment to Andrew Walton-Green...

...it's because you commented in a different article.

You can find your comments via the following link:

http://www.citywire.co.uk/money/clegg-we-will-wean-economy-off-obsession-with-financial-services/a432313

Fred

If there was enough North Sea Oil I would vote Scottish Nationalist.!

If someone is paid £10 an hour - and that's on the high side. Then simple arithmetic reveals that it is not "easy" to earn £20K. If the cleaner works a reasonable 48 weeks per year the hours worked are approx. 42 per week.

You should add to that travel time, almost certainly between a number of employers and of course you need quite a stable of employers. Far from easy, it's probably very, very difficult indeed. Lazy analysis.

What have the Romans ever done for us apart from civilisation, roads, security, clean water .................etc

Most of the comments have dealt with tax collection but maybe more important is how it is spent, I believe that before prospective MPs and certainly councillors are allowed to put themselves forward for election they should pass a competency test. Currently all that is needed, certainly for councillors, is an overblown ego , a loud mouth, political zealotry and time on their hands any of which in my view should disqualify them from public office. Unfortunately the apathy of the rest of us gives them an easy ride to election. What is really worrying is that these unaccountable egotists can find themselves with influence over the expenditure of millions of pounds of taxpayers money with no qualification to undertake such responsibility in a competent manner.

The repost ' well why don't you stand for election' is disingenuous since a strong political affiliation is almost a prerequisite for election and many of us , probably the majority, don't hold such bigotted views. The situation becomes even worse given that a main plank of the Tory philosophy is to pass even more responsibility doewn to local government where most of the incompetence lies. I guess altering the basis of the general election Is a step too far but in regard to local government I believe that we don't need councillors certainly not those political minnows referred to above. The argument that they represent democracy does'nt wash especially in an area like Surrey where conservative seats are so secure that they don't give any considedration to alternative views. Councillors reckon that in 5 years time you'l have forgotten the issue anyway.

Given a tightening up of the standards and qualifications for local government employees a solution might be to save the huge cost of councillors and appoint a full time, professionally qualified, non political scrutiny group/department; a sort of working omsbudsman. Such would undertake, without political bias, the checks and balances on local government spending that our often unqualified councillors are supposed to undertake but are often incompetent to do so .

Lorna

Going back to your original suggestion.

You appear to have mised the point that there is a North/South divide.

The TEN POUNDS/Hour might apply in London and SE, but not elsewhere.

Up North it is likely to be FIVE POUNDS or even less.

If HMRC should attempt to follow this route he should do a trial run in London and SE, before committing himself elsewhere.

Cos´ if it does not work in the London and SE on a cost effective basis, it aint going to work anywhere else.

As a small business owner, I have always paid a large percentage of income in tax of one sort or another. I actually have no problem with this. I realise that if I want roads, hospitals, police, firemen, defence forces and all the rest, then I have to pay for them. BUT what does get me hot under the collar is the knowledge that so many people avoid paying and don't even see it as immoral.

If we all paid our fair share then each of us would have to pay just that little bit less!

Paul

The council where I live recently changed all the general bins to a smaller variety on the belief that with a smaller bin people will dispose of less waste.

Is it not time for the government to require every council to make public its list of jobs with the salaries and hours worked. No names need be added?

BB42. Ans so say all of us south of the border!!!!

I think Statoil proves that it is not dogma that matters but management and management objectives.

What I saw in my 50yrs in the private sector was corruption, corruption and more corruption.

how nice it would have been had we freedom of information when thatcher was at the helm.

Every state that ends up over taxing its populace creates a massive black economy. The world is full of classic examples. In fact these groteque economies should implode ,but the strength of the black economy created becomes of major importance to survival. Britain had this during the war and for many years after.. You could buy anything for a Tin of Nescafe in Germany after the war. It is the natural law of economics, barter systems spring up ,alternative currencies start to manifest themselves. The populace begins to detach itself from the confiscatory State. Tax avoidance in all its forms are the first symptoms, and all the hypocrical rhetoric from Politicians will not stop it, it is a law of nature.

I am quite happy paying my taxes for people less fortunate than myself.

I of humble means have a house a car can do anything i want buy anything i want what else can a man ask for.?

I don't need £8million a year didn't earn that in my life.

I have no time to be miserable like a lot of people on here whos God is money seem to be looking over their shoulder all the time jealous of people getting on the whole a pittance to keep themselves While at the same time looking for the next scam to put one over people for financial gain.

Anyone who is self employed or in business is in a priveledged position as they have opportunities and do fiddle before they start to pay tax.

Why this them and us metallity .?

What self employed businessman is going to employ the unemployable because the government thinks it can save money putting the type of people into jobs that firms are really better without.

High tax rates only encourage avoidance and evasion. Lower direct taxes could be replaced (if necessary) with an increase in discretionary tax...VAT.

National insurance payments should be shown on, for example, PAYE wage slips as separate items for health, pension contributions and whatever other black holes these monies are poured down.

BRC

I don't think its high tax rates that make people fiddle vat charge vat don't declare it and hope they won't get caught.

Vat hits people on fixed incomes hardest. The truth is people don't want to pay tax doesn't matter what kind.

I Thinks before saying who should or should not pay more you first need to decide why we need to pay tax and what it is supposed to pay for.

There certainly seems to be a case of going back to basics and starting from the bottom and deciding what we really want out taxes to pay for and then finding the best and cost effective way to do it.

The Adam Smith Institute, calculated that the personal Tax Freedom Day, was May 30 this year. If however all the Labour Government's 2010 expenditure was financed by taxes rather than by loans, that day would not come until July 8. Tax Freedom day is slowly geting later in the year which means taxes are getting greater and taking the average person longer and longer to earn any money for themselves

That is not the sign of a thriving economy but one that is in trouble.

Taxation is to redistribute wealth in a civilised society

to BB 42

Then that is the problem. I

Taxation is not "in my opinion" meant to re-distribute wealth far from it.

If it was it we would have a very different society than it is today probably one based on "communism".

I can't believe that is what you actually believe !! Wow that certainly is an eye opener if others think the same. Doesn't work then does it?

If my history is correct "taxation" was supposedly originally instroduced to help fund the cost of paying for "armies" to conquer our enemies or replenish the rules coffers to help fund their wars..

.

re bb42 and Michael

I think you have both got it wrong.

the real reason for taxation is to give the boys a job-

-like Planing Inspectors, who run about the country on expenses and fat salries, doing a job which local councillors could do better at a fraction of the price.

-like Land Registry personnel dealing with boundary disputes which could easily be resolved in local Small Claims Courts

without the need for their large Legal Departments

Government have two fundamental roles, one is to provide security from external threats and the other is to provide basic services for the welfare of the population.

In providing welfare there are three group of society, those too young to work, those too ill to work and those too old to work. Everything has to be provided for by those who can work.

The problem is that since any organisatin is only concerned with its own survival and growth the whole thing gets distorted and becomes an end in itself. The result bloated and overgrown government.

I have just been reading a report in The Daily Mail that Les Dawson's Widow Tracy is being investigated by The Dept' of Work and Pensions.

Lorna and others may find the story interesting/enlightening. I certainly did.

Here's the link to read it online. www.dailymail.co.uk/female/article-1315086/Les-dawsons-widow-in:

I think the whole issue of what taxes are actually for is an interesting one and maybe we need some concensus on what people want taxes to be for and then work from there and indeed what people actually beleive they are for.

Obviously we need some taxes to help those who need (rather than choose) help and to pay for certain services which we all may want.

Re-distribution of wealth, not sure about that one though !

What do others think?

I agree with Dennis although I think the government also has to provide internal law and order as well and I think government should be a catalyst for retraining people whose skills become redundant as industries follow their inevitable lifecycles.

We have an additional problem in the UK in that London sucks too much of the wealth creating talent out of the rest of the country and we need intelligent variation of corporation tax rates to push jobs in the opposite direction unless we'd prefer the south east to become even more crowded.

Fundamentally benefits should give people a leg up or to put it another way enable people to help themselves by becoming independent net contributors to society.

Taxes to fund benefits in perpetuity are self defeating and self perpetuating and ultimately (fairly soon) unsustainable!

How do you deal with 8 million pound failures.

Is it right for instance that abramovich has a new yacht in every port and sqaundering russias natural resources on a football team miles away from home with no benefit for local people.

re. bb 42

Surely once one has paid one´s taxes, one can do what one wants with their money.

Probably Chelsea is a tax allowance.

The focus is all on collection. Tax is necessary, but it should be used wisely and not profigately as successive governments have done, especially the last three terms of Blair/Brown. It is a fact that when people are allowed to earn money for themselves, overall they put it to better use for the community than when it is decided for them by politicians. Government should have as a main role the protection of the nation's borders, the protection of citizens and citizenship, and the welfare of the needy. Hong Kong is a classic example of minimal tax and huge progress. Yes there are poor, and yes there is crime, but the jails aren't full, and the poor get help AND have hope that they can get work. And the public sector is tiny for the population and the control of immigration and the travelling public.

I am offended by the sheer waste of money in the public purse. Any household, and any private business, would be bankrupt, and rightly so. And I have to question why, when it comes to cuts in the public sector, it is always 'front-line' that has to go. Police on the beat, our Armed Forces, nurses, and fireman. Why not all the penpushers, co-ordinators, assistant deputy managers, not to mention endless consultants? Could it be that they are the ones given the task of making the cuts?

If individuals and companies do not have to pay so much, there will be less fraud, more prosperity, AND then more tax revenue!

My council tax has risen by 97% in the last 12 years - the Labour years.

The DSS pension has risen by 57%.

Distribution of wealth? From the elderly to the bureaucrats? Why should I, 85 years old , four years in the army etc have to suffer that huge cut? Of course it's hidden - when I tried to get the facts from my local council, I received a fearsome document headed Freedom of Information, the threat of a charge because of the work entailed. This angered me so I googled my way to the facts in 15 minutes, and had great pleasure in informing the council apparatchik. I received the barest acknowledgment.

The most sickening discrimination for pensioners living in London is that they pay part of their taxes to public "servants" who receive London Weighting of over £5000 a year on top of their salary. We receive only the pension that is less than £5000 and of course no extra for living in London.

Distribution of wealth?

I should have added that their are 31,000 adults in this borough who are exempt from council tax. At the last election the council issued 110,000 voting papers.

I leave you to ponder how that affected the outcome of the election.

My neighbour has a job title something like "Community Engagements Manager", he has seen the writing on the wall and is furiously looking for a new job before the axe falls.

If a household is short of funds and the people in it are all of working age and are contributing already as much as they can the only answer that family has is to reduce it's expenses. The government should do the same :- they could start with getting us out of Europe or if this is too difficult cut the number of Westminster MP's by 75% as this is the % of our laws that Europe is passing on our behalf.They could then stop paid councilors , they never used to get paid and the job was still done, probably better. Someone in this article mentioned wastage by government departments just to ensure that their budget was ok for the following year. This sort of thing was done in grand style this early spring when the Highways authority in the midlands took the top surface off a lot of perfectly good motorway hard shoulders and threw it away. They then bought new material and resurfaced the same hard shoulders. It is no wonder that people have lost their faith in the political classes