Archive for the ‘tax’ Category
The Panama Papers
Much is being said about the latest tax avoidance scandal- the Panama Papers.
But anybody with a little political and economic nous will already know the wealthy believe taxes are for the poor, not them.
You will already know they pay top tax lawyers to avoid as much as they can.
Who remembers the 1970s, when multi-millionaires were receiving tax demands for 90% of their earnings?
Well I say GOOD! Perhaps if we tax them at 90%, after their schemes to avoid as much as they can, we might actually get the 40% the Tories have set for the highest earners..
I Love Tax!
When I sit here, paying my bills with £332 in the bank, I wonder, in some small way I think, how the hell do these folks who have nothing but a paltry £71, or whatever today’s benefits are, manage?
Where the fuck are my taxes going? I do not want them buying nuclear missiles; I do not want them paying for idle, self serving MPs.
I want those taxes in the pockets of those that most need them; I want the poor to be richer; I want to see MY money, paid in taxes where they are most needed; to those less fortunate. And if one or two hangers-on take advantage of my contribution, so be it so long as those less fortunate are not relegated to the depths of despair, for lack of my – or your- contribution. For tomorrow, it may be you.
Another Tory ‘bait-and-switch’ scam – shares-for-rights scheme is employers’ tax dodge
Osborne’s latest con-trick worries me because I fear that employers will be given the right to force a rights-for-shares extravaganza if a majority of employees agree; we all know how coercive employers can be, with threats of lay-offs if you don’t “take a pay cut”; “increase your hours” or “sell your soul for worthless shares”.
“This government is taking action domestically on [tax] avoidance and evasion,” wrote George Osborne in an article for The Observer, back in February. How right he was.
The Tory-led Coalition has done everything in its power to facilitate tax avoidance and ignore evasion, it seems, including the latest wheeze, which is to link it with a feeble attempt to get working people to throw away their rights in exchange for a few shares.
The BBC has reported that the new status of “employee shareholder” has come into force, allowing working people to claim shares in the company that employs them, if they give up the rights to claim unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy pay, the right to request flexible working (except in the case of two weeks’ parental leave), and some rights to request time off for training.
Nobody in their right mind would do this and expert opinion is that take-up will be small. So why do it?
Well, it’s not about the workers at all. It’s about helping company bosses avoid paying their taxes. Even the right-wing-leaning BBC was unable to cover up the facts (although it left them until the end of the article):
“Companies can also claim some corporation tax deductions on the issuance of shares to employees.”
Yes – it’s a tax dodge!
Reblogged from Another Tory ‘bait-and-switch’ scam – shares-for-rights scheme is employers’ tax dodge. 428 words.
History Repeats Itself, or The Decline and Fall of the Tory Empire
“A possible future: The city of London is sacked by barbarian hordes. As a priest watches from the steps of St Paul’s, a burly Brixtonian drags David Cameron away from his wife Samantha. “
Did you know that the fall of the Roman Empire began when its richest citizens decided not to pay their taxes anymore and withdrew to their private estates? Public services were divided up and sold off, and the bulk of the tax burden was placed on the poor, who were in no position to pay up.
Yes, the top 1% pay 27% of tax. No, they’re not paying their share.
Yes, the top 1% pay 27% of tax. No, they’re not paying their share.05/01/2013 · by skwalker1964 · Bookmark the permalink. ·I’ve used these figures before, in a post I wrote a few months ago in response to some claims by Tory MP and apologist for the rich, Jacob Rees-Mogg. However, the claims have surfaced again in the last few days as defenders of the poor, oppressed wealthy have rushed to rubbish Labour’s idea of a ‘jobs guarantee’ for the long-term unemployed. So it seemed appropriate to write a new article highlighting the figures – and the fallacy they’re used to support.
via Yes, the top 1% pay 27% of tax. No, they're not paying their share..
Extracts from ‘Living under the threat of welfare ‘reform”
If I could force Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs, politicians, and supporters to read what follows, I would. It was sent to me today in response to my article, Bedroom tax will put people on streets while homes go empty, and details exactly what the author – a fellow blogger going by the monicker Clarebelz – expects will happen to her after the bedroom tax and other so-called welfare ‘reforms’ come into effect, starting in April 2013.This is not fiction.It is what this person expects to become her reality.While you are reading it, please ask yourself: Do you want to live in a society that treats its most vulnerable like this?
“As the deadline for paying bedroom tax and council tax draws near I, along with others commenting here and elsewhere, are feeling ever more hopeless about the whole situation. I just wanted to go to bed when I came back, unable to face another day worrying about how the hell I’m going to manage when I’m hardly managing now.
“This disgusting, despicable government has stolen the last two years from me through fear. I’ve just started painting again and doing other creative things that I used to, but it’s really hard to feel inspired when you’ve had the life sucked out of you, especially when your illness leaves you with little life left to do anything.
“By the way, my care plan assessor inquired about the bedroom tax for me from someone she knows at the DWP. The assessor said that the bedroom tax hits those of working age, which I knew anyway, but – interestingly – she said that the DWP person told her that the government has informed them that, once they have dealt with housing benefit in relation to people of working age, they will then move on to apply the same sanctions to pensioners, because many larger homes belong to pensioners who won’t move.
“It’s a horrible feeling.”
Read the full post Living under the threat of welfare 'reform' by Mike Sivier.
PAY, PAY AND PAY AGAIN
WONDER WHO’LL PAY IF PICKLES GETS HIS WAY?
WONDER WHO’LL PAY IF PICKLES GETS HIS WAY?
It seems Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary doesn’t want a mansion tax. Neither does he want the 50p tax kept, according to an article written by the Telegraph-
Some choice clips from the article:
• “Liberal Democrat Coalition partners have “got to understand” that introducing any form of so-called mansion tax would be a “big mistake”. “
• “He adds that the 50p higher rate of income tax should be scrapped so [rich] families can “keep more in their pockets”. “
• “It’s a red line for the Coalition. “
• “A growing number of Conservatives believe there should be tax cuts, starting with the removal of the 50p tax rate…”
• “I believe you get more tax revenue by lowering taxation …”
Funny isn’t it? Lowering the VAT rate doesn’t seem to figure in the “I believe you get more tax revenue by lowering taxation …” idea.
Funny, how the poor are told cuts in benefits and services are necessary, but the relatively rich can’t be penalised by paying more to help.
Except it isn’t really funny; not if you are poor; not if you are intelligent enough to spot the flaw in the arguments.
It will be interesting to see what the LibDems have to say about Mr Pickles statements. Will this be their ‘red line’ in the coalition? Will they have the guts to say ‘no more. We are out. Call an election.’ Somehow I think that is quite unlikely.
NICE BIT OF CREATIVE BBC REPORTING
The BBC shows its true [blue] colours reporting on u2’s Glastonbury debut marred by tax protest. Everything it says is true. However, the article says little about the detail of the band’s supposed [legal] tax evasion. But the article goes on to other performers and the weather! If you are reporting on an issue, stick to the issue. Don’t try to muddy the waters with inconsequential and irrelevant information.
But anybody who knows anything about reporting will know this is a well known and well used technique to appear impartial while in fact directing the reader’s/viewer’s attention away from the facts (though there are few facts relating to the headline!)
I would like to know more about the issues the protesters were campaigning about. Why weren’t Art Uncut interviewed and their views reported? Because the BBC supports the wealthy and their ability to [legally] avoid their [moral] tax responsibilities.
For those interested in more information about the protester’s grievance, here’s a link to Art Uncut’s blog post on the subject http://www.artuncut.org.uk/blog/#blog-12.
It appears the story on the original link I posted has now changed from the ‘tax protest’ story. Fortunately, News Sniffer has the story here-
SMILING CARCASS'S TWO-PENNETH 
