Posts Tagged ‘Income tax’

Make companies pay a form of income tax @UKLabour @afneil

January 31, 2016

Large companies pay tax on profits but voters don’t; they pay on income.
If we paid voter tax, on profit instead of income, we could pay zero tax, too.
All you have to do is maximise your costs.

You buy a big house, a big car, best quality food and best quality clothing.

Don’t buy:- Rent, wherever possible, with annual refurbishment of latest model computer, ipad, car etc.
It’s very easy to match income with living costs, unless you’re really creaming it in, like the P.M.. Then you’d have to find a reason to buy some property abroad. Maybe a mews house in Mayfair, so you can do your Xmas shopping in Oxford Street, or ditto New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong etc.
This is what Companies are doing and it’s only justification is that an income tax would stifle company need to re-invest and this is not valid.

If my tax bill is too high, I’m expected to cut my costs, like a State pensioner, to a level where I can claim a begrudged State aid to a survival level.

If my work costs are too large (e.g. the commute), I’m expected to change my job and/or get better pay. If my food bills are too high, I’m expected to eat less, or cut my social spending.  If my family increases in size, unexpectedly, I’m supposed to bear the cost, after a certain allowance.

It seems, as far as Government is concerned, that The Poor are a millstone and “If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population”.

I know that companies are wealth and job creator’s and need to be encouraged. I know that many rely on value added for their profit margin but the problem seems to rely on giving too much weight to their nett income and how it’s defined.

When building a ship, I have to buy steel, as a raw material. I don’t have to buy luxury offices, or hire machines etc. which mostly stand idle. I don’t have to incentivise myself with bonuses and large share dividends.

Make companies pay tax on Gross income and only allow reductions on items, which are made open to public scrutiny and approval. If costs are so commercially sensitive that they can’t be made public, then they are not entitled to be offset against tax.  That, for me, is on par with an individual asking for tax relief on their socially sensitive expenses.

Let the public decide what is an allowable cost, not some HMRC official, or coterie of corruptible politicians.

Taxes and National Insurance

March 12, 2011

At last! An attempt to rationalise the Tax System.  Even if the Welfare State was not in the process of being dismantled, it makes sense to get rid of the N.I.  contribution.

Even as a lowly member of the Public, I have been aware for most of my adult life that all taxes are dumped into one great pot and doled out to the various Government Departments, with no reference to their original source.

Think of the savings by Companies, big and small, not having to make those extra calculations. Just the ink saved, printing those meaningless numbers on payslips, must be significant.

Please don’t stop there. The savings to be made by incorporating the myriad of other annoying taxes must mean that Income Tax would only have to rise by a relatively trivial amount.

Start with getting  rid of Road Tax.  

Privatise The D.V.L.C. and let it be funded by the Insurance Companies. The only real purpose of the Tax disc is to catch uninsured drivers, so an Insurance disc would serve the same purpose and remove the need for SORN’s etc.

Next, scrap the BBC licence fee.

 Is it worth the huge industry associated with the collection of this Tax?

 Abolition would end the fiasco’s of Detector vans tracking down can’t pay, won’t be fined or imprisoned single mum’s etc. The present proliferation, of Internet based Re-broadcasting of TV programs, means that the detector  vans are even more redundant than previously.

The Government decides what revenue The BBC can have, so cut out the pretence of it being autonomous.

A similar argument can be made for scrapping Council Taxes, where the Government has to do lots of fudging of figures before deciding how much income each Local Authority will be allowed to collect. Think of the savings to be made in collecting this tax. In my local Authority I believe 40% don’t pay/ have to pay this tax.  That is in addition to those who just cock a snoot at Authority and defy attempts to extract it. In this respect, it would go some way towards rationalising the benefits system.

Most other forms of tax could be removed with similar savings.

The lie that VAT can not be reduced was laid bare by Gordon Brown.

VAT could be scrapped entirely and replaced by an increase in Income Tax:  The Public might be horrified by the increase in Income Tax but would be able to, immediately, see that it was balanced by a tremendous cut in their cost of living. The drop in Gas and Electricity bills, alone, would meet Universal  approval.

Besides the savings to be made by removing the Admin costs for this Euro-inspired tax, there would be a boost to High Street sales that might actually lift The Economy.

When all this has been put in place, it might be worth considering taking a leaf out of retailer’s books and awarding people “Welfare” points, based on the total actual Income Tax that they have paid. There would have to be a birthright allocation for those with a British birth Certificate, so that the young and the unemployable were taken into account.

This would have several advantages.

First: Illegal immigrants wouldn’t have any qualifying points and, so would not be entitled to any benefits.

Second: Those, who were working illegally, (such as illegal immigrants) and not paying income tax, would not gain points.

Third: The lie that people had not contributed enough to the pension pot to enable them to retire could be put aside. Pension entitlement would be decided on the basis of points accrued and what the Government of the day had declared, in their election manifesto, the exchange rate should be.

Fourth: Instead of Company Pension Funds, or annuities, which are susceptible to embezzlement (oops! We’re bankrupt but I’ve already got my share of the loot), people could opt to buy extra Welfare points.

Fifth: There would be an end to Health Tourists. Hospital patients would need either proof of Welfare Points (N.I. number to be checked against  central Government Database), or private Health Insurance.

Vat? a tax rise?

May 12, 2010
The coalition parties have detailed some of their agreed measures but have yet to declare how they will raise taxation, to pay off the National Debt,created to bail out the banking sector.
 One of the worst proposals attributed to New Labour was the threat to increase VAT to 29%, or more.
The iniquity of VAT is that it affects those who are less well able to shoulder the proposed tax burden.
An MP on a salary of £65,000 p.a. (plus allowances) may have to consider dining at a more modestly priced restaurant and ordering a less notable vintage.
The nurse, eating in the hospital canteen, can’t make such adjustments and her only choice will be to eat less.
This same theme applies to every purchase made by those on more modest salaries.
Whilst applauding the decision to have no Income Tax levied on salaries below £10,000 p.a., Income Tax should be seen as the fairest way of raising taxation.
Based on possible tax bandings of: upto £10,000 = 0%, upto £40,000 = 20%, upto £150,000 = 50%, A person on minimum wage would be left with £1600 disposable income, whilst an M.P. would be left with about £36,000 of disposable income.
The difference such a sum makes to one’s lifestyle, sense of freedom, sense of self-worth and ability to face life is huge.

If the minimum wage is taken as £12,000 p.a., this would mean that MP’s would have the same income, after tax, of four of their electors. Many, of whom, would consider themselves lucky to have a minimum wage job.
They do not have allowances and they do not get to go on fact-finding missions to far away places.
My last M.P. had to visit Canada and China in his first year, or so of office. many of his constituents will be looking at Travelodge’s list of £19 rooms(assuming no VAT increases).

tax versus benefits

March 25, 2010

It’s election time and the headless chickens are running around the country clucking for all their might.

We, as a country, are seriously in debt. Politicians of all parties will have to raise the money by increased taxes and we, the milch cows, know it.

It is galling to hear them attacking each other’s plans for raising these taxes, as if their own plans would be less hurtful.

The presiding party is talking of making job cuts, even after 13 years of so-called “trimming the fat”.

The heir-presumptive party is talking of savaging benefit payments.

All are keeping quiet about the obscene sums being handed over to the French (aka The EEC). None are considering rationalising the tax system and none are talking rationally on which public paid workers are essential, rather than adornments for political schemes. The threatened attacks on benefits make no mention of what will be done with the people, who are receiving benefits. e.g. will we be letting them starve to death, because there are no real  jobs for them.

I suggest that Government stop cutting back on essential workers and boost their numbers!  My reasoning is that the essential workers are the lowest paid workers; the ones, against whom most cost-cutting exercises have always been aimed. There would be more wages paid out but also less benefits. I reckon that when all the pennies have been properly accounted for, the drain on the public purse will not be much different and the benefits to our general quality of life will be increased. Savings could be made by reducing the number of overseers and record-keepers that have been needed to maintain the previous efficiency(?) savings.

Get out of the EEC. Forget about losing our markets, we don’t make anything, anymore.

Scrap all these niggling little stealth taxes, which mainly affect the lower paid and which probably cost as much to administer, as they raise in revenue. Most serve simply to make lives miserable.

Increase Income Tax and Corporation Taxes. These are simpler to administer and, because they apply the principle of  “from each according to his means, to each, according to his needs”, they are socially fairer. O.K there will be tax evaders but some of the staff freed from collecting other forms of revenue could be set to deal with attempted evasions through tribunal based judgments of each new scheme of evasion.

Examine Quangoes and pay levels of Council Officers. If a Quango is redundant, superfluous, supernumerary remove it. If the Quango chiefs are really worth £300,000 p.a. (that seems to be the typical rate), the private sector will snap them up. Council Officers seem to have been using “ratcheting” to boost their pay levels. Do a proper evaluation of the effort and effective intellectual input that their jobs require. This should not be based on the size of their budgets, departmental size or usual artificially enhanced marker, which encourage these people to empire build. Base it on the number of staff that they engage with on a daily basis, the number of hours required, the inconvenience aspects etc.  (bearing in mind that nurses, who are quite low paid, would probably outscore these people).

Stop taxing items simply because they are socially frowned on. If you want to get rid of  cigarette smoking, then make it illegal; don’t treat the taxation as if it were a fitting retribution for an act, which is a lot less damaging to Society than the unofficial Heroin trade that’s creating so much misery amongst those who have a habit and those who are robbed, or murdered, to feed that habit.

Why is a pint of bitter so highly taxed? The man having a pint of beer after a hard day’s labour, under the Sun, is punished to curb the excesses of  youth’s with their first benefit cheques. Like the Youth cares!

If I ruled the World, it’d be a happier place. I assure you.