Fuengirola Saint Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 I found this whilst reading a newspaper online In 2007, Grant Thornton, an accountancy firm, calculated that the UK's 54 billionaires paid income tax totalling just £14.7M on combined wealth of £126Bn. Can anyone defend this? Before anyone whines "That is their wealth not income" I know that but nobody can tell me that they earned on average only 600,000 pounds that year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 I found this whilst reading a newspaper online In 2007, Grant Thornton, an accountancy firm, calculated that the UK's 54 billionaires paid income tax totalling just £14.7M on combined wealth of £126Bn. Can anyone defend this? Before anyone whines "That is their wealth not income" I know that but nobody can tell me that they earned on average only 600,000 pounds that year Why don't you ask Grant Thornton, seeing as they appear to know so much about it? Ask them how they calculated this figure and what their advice is to their wealthy clients when they wish to reduce their income tax bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuengirola Saint Posted 27 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 27 May, 2010 Why don't you ask Grant Thornton, seeing as they appear to know so much about it? Ask them how they calculated this figure and what their advice is to their wealthy clients when they wish to reduce their income tax bills. Fair point, but why do they seem to have an aversion to paying their fair share in taxation, its not as if they are a bit short is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 I know of one tax exile worth £4.8bn who, after claiming all kinds of tax allowances on his staff, deer herd etc paid £33,000 in tax last year. Yes its immoral that someone with £4.8bn pays the same tax as someone on £100,000 but as wEs says. Grant Thornton and the like make a very healthy living shifting peoples money around the world to avoid tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuengirola Saint Posted 27 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 27 May, 2010 I know of one tax exile worth £4.8bn who, after claiming all kinds of tax allowances on his staff, deer herd etc paid £33,000 in tax last year. Yes its immoral that someone with £4.8bn pays the same tax as someone on £100,000 but as wEs says. Grant Thornton and the like make a very healthy living shifting peoples money around the world to avoid tax. The simple solution is for government to close tax loopholes, they should be able to do it or is it a case of not wanting to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 The simple solution is for government to close tax loopholes, they should be able to do it or is it a case of not wanting to! There is always another country prepared to offer soft tax regimes to rich people from other nations. Thats why Scandinavian billionaires migrate to the UK whilst UK billionaires go to Monaco / Switzerland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 I found this whilst reading a newspaper online In 2007, Grant Thornton, an accountancy firm, calculated that the UK's 54 billionaires paid income tax totalling just £14.7M on combined wealth of £126Bn. Can anyone defend this? Before anyone whines "That is their wealth not income" I know that but nobody can tell me that they earned on average only 600,000 pounds that year Why not? 600K is a fair bet. I doubt most billionaires actually have billions in realisable cash money sitting around, most of their assumed wealth will be stashed away in stocks, shares, bonds, investments, property and collections (art, cars, horses). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 I found this whilst reading a newspaper online In 2007, Grant Thornton, an accountancy firm, calculated that the UK's 54 billionaires paid income tax totalling just £14.7M on combined wealth of £126Bn. Can anyone defend this? Before anyone whines "That is their wealth not income" I know that but nobody can tell me that they earned on average only 600,000 pounds that year How many jobs have these 54 billionaire's business ventures created over the years and what is the total amount of income tax paid by all their employees over that period of time? The less tax our most wealthy pay the more they'll invest in their businesses and the more jobs they'll create. Anyone for rocket science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 How many jobs have these 54 billionaire's business ventures created over the years and what is the total amount of income tax paid by all their employees over that period of time? The less tax our most wealthy pay the more they'll invest in their businesses and the more jobs they'll create. Anyone for rocket science? No, it's trickle-down economics. When the trickle gets to the bottom it tends to be dried up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 How many jobs have these 54 billionaire's business ventures created over the years and what is the total amount of income tax paid by all their employees over that period of time? The less tax our most wealthy pay the more they'll invest in their businesses and the more jobs they'll create. Anyone for rocket science? Its always amusing how many little englander tory voters condemn 'spongers', moan about how much tax they pay on their average incomes whilst doffing their cap to rich people. Perhaps companies shouldn pay corporaton tax either - after all they employ lots of people. VAT is a tax on sales and puts pressure on shops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 Why not? 600K is a fair bet. I doubt most billionaires actually have billions in realisable cash money sitting around, most of their assumed wealth will be stashed away in stocks, shares, bonds, investments, property and collections (art, cars, horses). You'd have to be a total cretin to not be able to get a return of 6%pa - £60million pa income for someone with just 1 billion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 How many jobs have these 54 billionaire's business ventures created over the years and what is the total amount of income tax paid by all their employees over that period of time? The less tax our most wealthy pay the more they'll invest in their businesses and the more jobs they'll create. Anyone for rocket science? Yes, the government can attempt to close tax evasion or avoidance loopholes, but ultimately those targetted will then decide to go elsewhere, thus risking the loss of jobs and consequent taxation revenue from those employed in those businesses, as you have highlighted. There is less chance of really wealthy people evading taxation if the taxes are deemed to be fair, but when the top rate is at half of somebody's income, that is already too high. I was watching a documentary the other day about how the Rolling Stones went into exile in the South of France because Wilson's government had the top rate of tax at 86% or something equally ridiculous and that was also the reason for the Beatles' song "I'm the Taxman". When that top rate came down to 40% under Thatcher, the revenue take by the Exchequer actually increased. Why nobody can learn the lessons of history in these matters is beyond me. It is either because of dogma or stupidity, or perhaps both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 You'd have to be a total cretin to not be able to get a return of 6%pa - £60million pa income for someone with just 1 billion You would have to be an even bigger cretin to take any return on your investments in cash, and therefore pay tax on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 You would have to be an even bigger cretin to take any return on your investments in cash, and therefore pay tax on them. So they do have income greater than the £600,000pa you claimed then, its just that its repackaged and sheltered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 So they do have income greater than the £600,000pa you claimed then, its just that its repackaged and sheltered. No, 'income' is a monetary amount. Share issues, bond issues and re-investment are not monetary. PS, I didn't claim anything, I think you will find that it was "Grant Thornton" that produced the figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 Yes, the government can attempt to close tax evasion or avoidance loopholes, but ultimately those targetted will then decide to go elsewhere, thus risking the loss of jobs and consequent taxation revenue from those employed in those businesses, as you have highlighted. There is less chance of really wealthy people evading taxation if the taxes are deemed to be fair, but when the top rate is at half of somebody's income, that is already too high. I was watching a documentary the other day about how the Rolling Stones went into exile in the South of France because Wilson's government had the top rate of tax at 86% or something equally ridiculous and that was also the reason for the Beatles' song "I'm the Taxman". When that top rate came down to 40% under Thatcher, the revenue take by the Exchequer actually increased. Why nobody can learn the lessons of history in these matters is beyond me. It is either because of dogma or stupidity, or perhaps both. 40% is very fair, as long as they pay 40%, just like I do on PAYE. It doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 Its always amusing how many little englander tory voters condemn 'spongers', moan about how much tax they pay on their average incomes whilst doffing their cap to rich people. We had 13 years of a Labour Govt (with massive majorities) to close these loopholes and make the tax system fairer, why didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuengirola Saint Posted 27 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 27 May, 2010 No, it's trickle-down economics. When the trickle gets to the bottom it tends to be dried up. Exactly, you have to be some kind of muppet if you believe all that trickle down ****e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuengirola Saint Posted 27 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 27 May, 2010 40% is very fair, as long as they pay 40%, just like I do on PAYE. It doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. Thats the problem the ****s don´t even want to pay that, whereas you or i would be hauled in front of the beak if we tried to avoid tax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuengirola Saint Posted 27 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 27 May, 2010 We had 13 years of a Labour Govt (with massive majorities) to close these loopholes and make the tax system fairer, why didn't they? Because it may have been Labour in name but in reality it was just another in a long line of right wing governments,although there were a few bright spots, e.g minimum wage etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 Estimated cost of benefit cheats per year in the UK = 61 million pounds Estimated cost of tax cheats per year in the UK = 25 billion pounds It's the same over here though. Tax records are 100% in the public domain here, I can look up what any Norwegian earned last year on the net, and the the people you know are rich often have an income and personal fortune of zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 No, it's trickle-down economics. When the trickle gets to the bottom it tends to be dried up. E.G. about the minimum wage, or less if they can get away with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 Estimated cost of benefit cheats per year in the UK = 61 million pounds Estimated cost of tax cheats per year in the UK = 25 billion pounds It's the same over here though. Tax records are 100% in the public domain here, I can look up what any Norwegian earned last year on the net, and the the people you know are rich often have an income and personal fortune of zero. "rich always ****ing with the poor, always have, always will" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 Because it may have been Labour in name but in reality it was just another in a long line of right wing governments,although there were a few bright spots, e.g minimum wage etc that tells you that this country simply does not want a "traditional" labour in power...even the libdems failed to live up to the hype recently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuengirola Saint Posted 27 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 27 May, 2010 that tells you that this country simply does not want a "traditional" labour in power...even the libdems failed to live up to the hype recently Well if thats the case,it´s a sad state of of affairs for Britain and it´s blatantly obvious that the country didn´t want a "traditional" Tory party either! If they couldn´t get a stomping majority over an unpopular government and even more unpopular PM they don´t stand a chance of ever getting that majority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 Well if thats the case,it´s a sad state of of affairs for Britain and it´s blatantly obvious that the country didn´t want a "traditional" Tory party either! If they couldn´t get a stomping majority over an unpopular government and even more unpopular PM they don´t stand a chance of ever getting that majority well..it/we want a more tory leaning party than anything else....and that is at its lowest faith in parliament.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 It's funny, but here in Italy doctors, particularly the ones in private practice, earn less than postmen.... The Italian revenue have checks about property you own (including that little second holiday house in the mountains or by the sea), car you drive, boat you own, cleaners and gardeners you employ etc, but it obviously doesn't work that well. Either way, I have very little to worry about! Mind you, I will admit my 10 year old Fabia does have pretty low mileage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S4INT Posted 27 May, 2010 Share Posted 27 May, 2010 No, it's trickle-down economics. When the trickle gets to the bottom it tends to be dried up. I am very much hoping the Liberal Democrats stick to their pledge to close these tax-loopholes on the (in many cases) incredibly greedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 I found this whilst reading a newspaper online In 2007, Grant Thornton, an accountancy firm, calculated that the UK's 54 billionaires paid income tax totalling just £14.7M on combined wealth of £126Bn. Can anyone defend this? Before anyone whines "That is their wealth not income" I know that but nobody can tell me that they earned on average only 600,000 pounds that year I can see where you're coming from and why you are pointing this out. As the statement stands, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments, but this isn't the whole picture. Often the calculation of wealth is based on the shareholdings of their companies. Bill Gates was reputed to be worth 80 billion, however it does not mean he earns this. As it happens in 2006, he earned $900,000 which in todays money comes to £600,000 per year, so the richest billionaire in the world earned the magic £600k quoted in your post. Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple earns $1 per year in salary, yet his wealth is estimated to be $5.5 billion. Billionaires are less likely to pay income tax as they are less likely to earn their money through salary unlike the rest of us mere mortals. Most of their 'income' will be in the form of dividends, disposal of assets (selling shares) and the like. Richard Branson used to borrow money from people to buy a cup of tea as he never had any cash on him and he was worth £4 billion back then. Therefore you have to look at their total tax contribution, such as capital gains tax and corporation tax on their companies (the values of which are used to calculate their wealth) to get a clearer picture. As I've suggested before, I think as big an issue is where this wealth is locked up. I would like to see their wealth put to use to benefit us all. The billionaires should be encouraged to invest this wealth in UK business and industry which would do much more for everyone as a whole. It would create more jobs, more wealth for the country and potentially more wealth for them too. It is a win win situation for me and would be more preferable to taxing them until the pips squeek. Estimated cost of benefit cheats per year in the UK = 61 million pounds Estimated cost of tax cheats per year in the UK = 25 billion pounds Estimated number of jobs created by benefits cheats = 0 Estimated number of jobs created by billionaires = 100,000's According to Forbes who analyse the Grant Thornton figures, the 'loss' in income tax from the 'tax cheats' is £1bn..... http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/07/britain-billionaires-mittal-ent_cx_pm_1207ukbillies.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 Estimated number of jobs created by benefits cheats = 0 Estimated number of jobs created by billionaires = 100,000's No, Johnny, I won't have it. Benefit cheats create numerous jobs. There has to be an army of investigators to bring them to task and work for those employed in their prosecution. Extra work also goes to the bureacrats who have to draw up the legislation to combat it and to the people in the advertising industry who air those TV ads asking for the public to shop them. And then don't forget the jobs created by the money that those cheats spend, even if much of it might be in the pubs and betting shops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 28 May, 2010 Share Posted 28 May, 2010 No, Johnny, I won't have it. Benefit cheats create numerous jobs. There has to be an army of investigators to bring them to task and work for those employed in their prosecution. Extra work also goes to the bureacrats who have to draw up the legislation to combat it and to the people in the advertising industry who air those TV ads asking for the public to shop them. And then don't forget the jobs created by the money that those cheats spend, even if much of it might be in the pubs and betting shops. Oh WT, how silly of me. I would like it put on record right now that I am eternally greatful to the benefit cheats and their overall "contribution" to society . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuengirola Saint Posted 28 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 28 May, 2010 I Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple earns $1 per year in salary, yet his wealth is estimated to be $5.5 billion. Exactly my point, his income is 1 dollar because he doesn´t want to pay income tax, why? Why doesn´t he want to pay it? I have to, you have to and every other Tom **** and Harry has to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 June, 2010 Share Posted 3 June, 2010 No country ever got wealthy by charging high taxes, and no billionaire is going to hang around paying high taxes when they can live where they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 June, 2010 Share Posted 3 June, 2010 I Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple earns $1 per year in salary, yet his wealth is estimated to be $5.5 billion. Exactly my point, his income is 1 dollar because he doesn´t want to pay income tax, why? Why doesn´t he want to pay it? I have to, you have to and every other Tom **** and Harry has to. Are you advocating a 'wealth tax'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 June, 2010 Share Posted 3 June, 2010 40% is very fair, as long as they pay 40%, just like I do on PAYE. It doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. You forgot to add the NI ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 3 June, 2010 Share Posted 3 June, 2010 Iam all for people making fortunes but at the same time I find it distatsteful that people like Sir Phillip Green makes billions but them pays nothing in taxes. His arguement is he is providing jobs etc etc but if he didnt supply the goods someone else would who pays taxes. There is no defence against billionaires not paying taxes into the system and alll loopholes should be closed immediately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 June, 2010 Share Posted 3 June, 2010 Iam all for people making fortunes but at the same time I find it distatsteful that people like Sir Phillip Green makes billions but them pays nothing in taxes. His arguement is he is providing jobs etc etc but if he didnt supply the goods someone else would who pays taxes. There is no defence against billionaires not paying taxes into the system and alll loopholes should be closed immediately The question should be 'how did they become billionaires without paying a lot of tax?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 3 June, 2010 Share Posted 3 June, 2010 The question should be 'how did they become billionaires without paying a lot of tax?' by being non doms I suspect. Taxes should not stop when you become a bilionaire. Im happy for them to get some tax breaks but some of it is a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 3 June, 2010 Share Posted 3 June, 2010 by being non doms I suspect. Taxes should not stop when you become a bilionaire. Im happy for them to get some tax breaks but some of it is a joke That's what I'm aiming at. If they've paid their taxes when they earned it then I'm happy for them to keep their net earnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lloydie Posted 3 June, 2010 Share Posted 3 June, 2010 Its a shame what money/greed can do, to be fair if i was earning that magic £600k id be happy to have around £100-200k maybe more, of it taken back in tax, provided everyone else in a similar position did the same as ultimately I'd still think the remaining £400k pa is hardly a to be sniffed at imo. Just wish there would be some understanding between the rich and the poor and maybe some humility would factor in to their souls, as things would be alot better of in our country and we'd all live happily ever after.... Oh well back to pills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 June, 2010 Share Posted 4 June, 2010 Its a shame what money/greed can do, to be fair if i was earning that magic £600k id be happy to have around £100-200k maybe more, of it taken back in tax, provided everyone else in a similar position did the same as ultimately I'd still think the remaining £400k pa is hardly a to be sniffed at imo. Just wish there would be some understanding between the rich and the poor and maybe some humility would factor in to their souls, as things would be alot better of in our country and we'd all live happily ever after.... Oh well back to pills! the thing is though, if you earn 500k you live up to that with the lifestyle they live. Therefore a lot of these people do not feel rich, they look at people in their social circles who are doing better and want to be at their level and so on. in my business dealings over the years, the people i call very wealthy are still not happy as they feel they could be earning more. it is not greed by the way, although to many it would seem that way. I may also add they do their best to screw every penny out of any transaction made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 4 June, 2010 Share Posted 4 June, 2010 Its a shame what money/greed can do, to be fair if i was earning that magic £600k id be happy to have around £100-200k maybe more, of it taken back in tax, provided everyone else in a similar position did the same as ultimately I'd still think the remaining £400k pa is hardly a to be sniffed at imo. Just wish there would be some understanding between the rich and the poor and maybe some humility would factor in to their souls, as things would be alot better of in our country and we'd all live happily ever after.... Oh well back to pills! Most people earning £600k would be delighted if they only paid £100k-£200k tax... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 8 June, 2010 Share Posted 8 June, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skintsaint Posted 10 June, 2010 Share Posted 10 June, 2010 "rich always ****ing with the poor, always have, always will" nice sneaky Platoon line there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuengirola Saint Posted 12 June, 2010 Author Share Posted 12 June, 2010 Most people earning £600k would be delighted if they only paid £100k-£200k tax... Of course they would seeing as the top rate is 50% :-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 12 June, 2010 Share Posted 12 June, 2010 Fuengirola I can understand why you are against the unfairness here. I am too. But the problem is that the super rich are vital to Britain and the net gain from taxing them and some upping sticks would be more than wiped out due to the fact that for every mega rich person there is a trail of his cash entering the economy directly and indirectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 13 June, 2010 Share Posted 13 June, 2010 .......... But the problem is that the super rich are vital to Britain............. Come on Dune, yo know what nonsense that is mate. The poor are equally important. If one poor person dies another takes his place and this is the same for the wealthy. The 'real' money in today's World is not traceable to any proper country and we are so far removed from their World that it is not worth getting hot under the collar about. Your writings do however give me an idea, rahter than chop of her Maj's head why don;t we just tax her and her (OUR apparently) properties to the point where she buggers off abroad? Seriously Dune, I reckon that HM is the closest the likes of us will ever get to seeing how the real wealthy live and take the **** out of us. Globalisation, that is where it is at imho. IMHO it is better to be accepting of these things, otherwise we become court jesters for them. I was lambasted (albeit mildly) for not voting twice (thanks mrs hamster ;-) , she still doesn;t know) and told that I had no right to complain or comment even, when the dust settled. I prefer to think and believe that I do in fact have more right to complain, to those who voted for any party. It's you silly beggars that encourage them. I am actually considering becoming a 'passive anarchist' in the future. Not smashing windows of maccy D's and the like, which ironically these global's claw back through insurances which THEY own and WE pay for. They must be laughing all the way to THEIR banks. that is all. lord hamster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 June, 2010 Share Posted 13 June, 2010 Of course they would seeing as the top rate is 50% :-/ Plus the NI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 June, 2010 Share Posted 13 June, 2010 Your writings do however give me an idea, rahter than chop of her Maj's head why don;t we just tax her and her (OUR apparently) properties to the point where she buggers off abroad? Seriously Dune, I reckon that HM is the closest the likes of us will ever get to seeing how the real wealthy live and take the **** out of us. A couple of points there.... We confiscated all the royal property and in exchange we give them a 'modest' subsistence. We are quids in. Having a repulic with a president instead would actually cost a lot more. Just the cost of holding regular elections would be a lot more. How do you like the sound of 'President Kinnock', or maybe 'President Prescott'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now