The Anything Thread that is Never off subject.

Benjahmin

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 10, 2014
2,769
1,819
71
West Wales
Back to my original point.
The tax code is way too complex. The amount of energy that's wasted arguing the toss about all this is stupendous and could be far more creatively used.
Let's light the blue touchpaper and stand well back.
Simply pay 20% of everything that goes into your bank account, with the bank required to report direct to HMRC. No if's or but's - a straight 20%.
As we edge toward being wholly digital this would be easy to do.
I'm going to the bunker !
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
21,592
17,410
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
Good idea.
How so? If we have flat rate on both earned and income and unearned income, the poor are much worse off than the rich. Those who practice bartering don't have to pay anything. That system isn't fair.
 

Benjahmin

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 10, 2014
2,769
1,819
71
West Wales
Those who can afford expensive tax advisors/lawyers end up paying far less percentage tax than those who can't afford them. How's that fair?
I'm not saying that what I proposed would work or is practical. But it's time we started to think that there must be a better way to fund government services than this ever more complicated and complex tax code that only ever benefits those who can lawyer up.
If I phone HMRC (good luck getting through) for 'advice', I have to treat what I am told as gospel. A high net worth individual can pretty much tell them what he is going to pay and, moreover, what he spent in advisors is tax deductable. That's after the government has given him 40% on top of his pension savings. Then there's paying the wife as 'bookkeeper' and the kids as car valet experts and grounds staff.
There's a whole tax deductable industry centred around tax avoidance that wouldn't exsist if there was a simple tax code.

What this needs is the hive mind on it, because it's a sure thing that if it's left to economists and experts it'll be another complex cock up that ends up with less flowing into treasury coffers at the greater expense of those who can't avoid/fight it.
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
21,592
17,410
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
Those who can afford expensive tax advisors/lawyers end up paying far less percentage tax than those who can't afford them. How's that fair?
As long as their tax lawyers can remove more tax for their clients than their fees, the rich will still hire tax lawyers under any system.
If you want to fight injustice, you have to curtail which income streams can be hidden, especially the use of onshore and offshore trusts and cryptos.
 

Tony1951

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jul 29, 2025
257
78
How so? If we have flat rate on both earned and income and unearned income, the poor are much worse off than the rich. Those who practice bartering don't have to pay anything. That system isn't fair.
The poor are always much worse off than the rich.

It is built into the very genes of our being. Some people are clever, and some are not. Some people work hard and are creative and some do not, and are not.

Long gone are the days when clever hard working people in what we used to call, 'the working class'; people like my own mother, born in 1921, were held down by circumstances and convention and made to leave school at 14 to do mundane, badly paid manual work. Those conditions have not existed since WW2, after which bright ordinary kids went to schools which opened up a world of possibilities to those who had the ability and character to take advantage of what was possible. In fact, the conditions during WW2 created opportunities for people like my mother to expand their horizons, because suddenly, it mattered whether you were clever and had drive and good character, rather than who your parents were, and where you were born. This saw people like David Starkey, a working class boy from Kendal, become a famous professor of History, and renowned expert on the Tudors and much more than that.

Now we still have the barrier of genes, bad health and accidental injury as barriers to success and social progress, but i see no reason to squeeze those who through hard work and capability have made more than others.

One of my sons has moved his business and his residence abroad because of impositions from people in government. He is far from being alone in that. Attempts to get more from clever, potentially mobile business owners usually end up reducing the actual tax collected.
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
21,592
17,410
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
The poor are always much worse off than the rich.
we can agree on that but you already knew what I meant in that context, the poor will have less disposable income than our current progressive tax system.

Long gone are the days when clever hard working people in what we used to call, 'the working class'; people like my own mother, born in 1921, were held down by circumstances and convention and made to leave school at 14 to do mundane, badly paid manual work. Those conditions have not existed since WW2, after which bright ordinary kids went to schools which opened up a world of possibilities to those who had the ability and character to take advantage of what was possible. In fact, the conditions during WW2 created opportunities for people like my mother to expand their horizons, because suddenly, it mattered whether you were clever and had drive and good character, rather than who your parents were, and where you were born. This saw people like David Starkey, a working class boy from Kendal, become a famous professor of History, and renowned expert on the Tudors and much more than that.
The issue is how do we tax appropriately unearned income to bring it to closer to the higher income tax rate, 40% and 45%.
Compare the years of investment into educating someone who earn £100k pre tax in a paid job, typically GP, dentist, lawyer, business consultant etc. His take home pay is £ 68,557.40 . He paid £31,423 in taxes.
If you sell your house and make £100k on it, you pay nothing in tax.
It's not just selling your house, you can withraw £100k profit from your ISA and pay nothing.
If you make £100k on the stock market outside your ISA, put £20K of that into your ISA, you pay £11,630.00 in CGT.
Where is the fairness in that?
 

Tony1951

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jul 29, 2025
257
78
we can agree on that but you already knew what I meant in that context, the poor will have less disposable income than our current progressive tax system.


The issue is how do we tax appropriately unearned income to bring it to closer to the higher income tax rate, 40% and 45%.
Compare the years of investment into educating someone who earn £100k pre tax in a paid job, typically GP, dentist, lawyer, business consultant etc. His take home pay is £ 68,557.40 . He paid £31,423 in taxes.
If you sell your house and make £100k on it, you pay nothing in tax.
It's not just selling your house, you can withraw £100k profit from your ISA and pay nothing.
If you make £100k on the stock market outside your ISA, put £20K of that into your ISA, you pay £11,630.00 in CGT.
Where is the fairness in that?
Half of CGT take if not more is just taxing people on inflation.

Our CGT system is largely taxing people on notional gains which in some cases have not even covered the losses through inflation.

The left usually has a profound dislike for what they call, unearned income - ie not actual wages. A business owner who takes his income from a successful business in the form of dividends to save on tax is simply taking advantage of a relief written into the tax code to pay less tax. It is fine. A frugal person who over fifty years of saving and forgoing spending, builds up an investment portfolio should be able to reap the reward without the tax man ripping him off by taxing inflation when he sells some part of his assets. Same with a house. Remember - the individual bought those shares, or that house out of his taxed income. The money was taxed when he earned it in the first place.

Governments sometimes act like gangsters. They do it just because they can.

Tax is a form of extortion even though we may come to the conclusion that there are certain things a nation must pay for and that tax is the way to do it.

What we have seen over time is a massive rise in activities the state pays for. I see no reason why probably millions of children whose fathers have abandoned them should be paid for by the state. Even less am I prepared to tolerate the funding of families who have large numbers of children without adequate means to support them. The two child benefit cap should stay.

I think in some respects, the French have it about right when they take to the streets and riot to show government, as they did in 1789, that they will not put up with any more of their impositions.


EDIT:

By the way - some of those tax reliefs you seem to object to were made to encourage certain kinds of financial behaviour such as saving, and buying your own home. The fact that they treat share holdings differently, is simply an indication that they should give the same tax relief there as they do on ISAs. It is not a sign that ISA relief should be abandoned.

High tax governments ALWAYS suppress the economy. They should spend less and tax less, not spend more and tax more.

People should have MUCH more responsibility for themselves and their own income. There are massive numbers of working age people being kept by the state now.

UK Parliamentary committee says :

"
  • 3.7 million people of working age receive health-related benefits – 1.2 million more than in February 2020. We are now spending more on incapacity and disability benefits (almost £65 billion) than defence – and that figure is set to rise."

Look at the size of the working age disability benefit we are paying right now. The purple shaded area is for WORKING AGE disability payments. Total payments of £65 Billion - and the lion's share - about 75% of that to working age adults.

That is insane.

64266
 
Last edited:

MikelBikel

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 6, 2017
2,038
400
Ireland
we can agree on that but you already knew what I meant in that context, the poor will have less disposable income than our current progressive tax system.


The issue is how do we tax appropriately unearned income to bring it to closer to the higher income tax rate, 40% and 45%.
Compare the years of investment into educating someone who earn £100k pre tax in a paid job, typically GP, dentist, lawyer, business consultant etc. His take home pay is £ 68,557.40 . He paid £31,423 in taxes.
If you sell your house and make £100k on it, you pay nothing in tax.
It's not just selling your house, you can withraw £100k profit from your ISA and pay nothing.
If you make £100k on the stock market outside your ISA, put £20K of that into your ISA, you pay £11,630.00 in CGT.
Where is the fairness in that?
You mean people like Two Tier Farmer Harmer?
Have u got a special act of Parliament passed for your just your pension to be tax free?
Have u got 3 homes on a 1 home salary, like
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/angela-rayner-resignation-letter-and-sir-keir-starmer-reply-in-full/ar-AA1LX4Hj ?
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
21,592
17,410
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
You mean people like Two Tier Farmer Harmer?
Have u got a special act of Parliament passed for your just your pension to be tax free?
Have u got 3 homes on a 1 home salary,
Pension is not tax free
 

Tony1951

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jul 29, 2025
257
78
Half of CGT take if not more is just taxing people on inflation.

Our CGT system is largely taxing people on notional gains which in some cases have not even covered the losses through inflation.

The left usually has a profound dislike for what they call, unearned income - ie not actual wages. A business owner who takes his income from a successful business in the form of dividends to save on tax is simply taking advantage of a relief written into the tax code to pay less tax. It is fine. A frugal person who over fifty years of saving and forgoing spending, builds up an investment portfolio should be able to reap the reward without the tax man ripping him off by taxing inflation when he sells some part of his assets. Same with a house. Remember - the individual bought those shares, or that house out of his taxed income. The money was taxed when he earned it in the first place.

Governments sometimes act like gangsters. They do it just because they can.

Tax is a form of extortion even though we may come to the conclusion that there are certain things a nation must pay for and that tax is the way to do it.

What we have seen over time is a massive rise in activities the state pays for. I see no reason why probably millions of children whose fathers have abandoned them should be paid for by the state. Even less am I prepared to tolerate the funding of families who have large numbers of children without adequate means to support them. The two child benefit cap should stay.

I think in some respects, the French have it about right when they take to the streets and riot to show government, as they did in 1789, that they will not put up with any more of their impositions.


EDIT:

By the way - some of those tax reliefs you seem to object to were made to encourage certain kinds of financial behaviour such as saving, and buying your own home. The fact that they treat share holdings differently, is simply an indication that they should give the same tax relief there as they do on ISAs. It is not a sign that ISA relief should be abandoned.

High tax governments ALWAYS suppress the economy. They should spend less and tax less, not spend more and tax more.

People should have MUCH more responsibility for themselves and their own income. There are massive numbers of working age people being kept by the state now.

UK Parliamentary committee says :

"
  • 3.7 million people of working age receive health-related benefits – 1.2 million more than in February 2020. We are now spending more on incapacity and disability benefits (almost £65 billion) than defence – and that figure is set to rise."

Look at the size of the working age disability benefit we are paying right now. The purple shaded area is for WORKING AGE disability payments. Total payments of £65 Billion - and the lion's share - about 75% of that to working age adults.

That is insane.

View attachment 64266
I made an error in this post when i said that the lion's share of £65Bn was spent on working age disability benefits. All of that is spent on them.
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
21,592
17,410
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
Our CGT system is largely taxing people on notional gains which in some cases have not even covered the losses through inflation.
How can you say 'notional' when you pay CGT typically more than a year after you have sold the asset? The system also lets you reclaim your losses.
Compared to earned income, if you are laid off or have an accident and cannot work, you don't get back previous tax paid.
 

MikelBikel

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 6, 2017
2,038
400
Ireland

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
21,592
17,410
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
"Keir Starmer has been criticized for having a tax-exempt pension scheme from his previous role as Director of Public Prosecutions, which some view as hypocritical given his party's stance on pension taxation. This scheme allows him to avoid taxes on pension savings over £1 million, while Labour has opposed similar tax breaks for high earners. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=keir+starmer+tax+free+oebsion&ia=web&assist=true "
That special scheme given to him when he stepped down from his job as chief of the CPS by the then Conservative government was made obsolete last year. He doesn't have it anymore. He's now treated like anyone else.
 

MikelBikel

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 6, 2017
2,038
400
Ireland
That special scheme given to him when he stepped down from his job as chief of the CPS by the then Conservative government was made obsolete last year. He doesn't have it anymore. He's now treated like anyone else.
The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013 is the act of parliament that established a special pension scheme for Sir Keir Starmer when he served as the Director of Public Prosecutions. This legislation allows him to be exempt from the lifetime allowance tax on pension savings over £1 million from his time in that role. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=keir+starmer+pension+act+of+parliament&ia=web&assist=true
So has this Act of Parliament (made just for him, it has His name on it) been repealed? If not then it stands. Can you show us the repeal?
 

Advertisers