C’mon Ernie make you mind up…am I voting Labour or Tory?

I thought it was you who hadn’t made up your mind.

What did you mean by this ?

“Sad when people feel compelled to frame everything thought the predetermined prism of a group of random political people”.

The Tories aren’t random political people, is that what you mean then ?

I would stick to the day job, the mind reading seems to have gone astray! 😉

Anyway, a bit of banter and a giggle for a Sunday. Thanks. Made up for one dreadful opening chamber piece in the concert tonight.

Made up for one dreadful opening chamber piece in the concert tonight.

Now that’s made me feel completely inadequate because I have no idea what an “opening chamber piece” is.

Close your eyes and read my mind! 😉

You don’t want to know – it was dire. Chamber pot more like, Saved by change to a symphony orchestra with Sibelius and Elgar to save the evening.

An ISA is good tax management. If you find tax management immoral then just put your £10K in the building society and pay tax at source at 25% rather than taking “advantage” of your fellow citizens.
I am a British citizen but I am resident overseas due to my job so I pay no UK taxes apart from income on my UK house, which is let. I am aware that makes me a big bad landlord in some peoples eyes but without that income I could not afford to do a low paid job overseas. Lewis Hamilton’s job is based far more overseas than it is in the UK and far more lucrative than mine so it makes perfect sense for him to live in a country that supports individual tax management.
The gradual break down of this thread across the political divide is somewhat predictable but also ironic as non residents do not have the right to vote in the UK.
The UK is not a communist state and it’s taxation system is based on legislation formed by the government of the day which is voted for in a democratic process.
The interesting argument about Hamilton owing tax for his education, healthcare etc is essentially flawed. The UK tax and benefits system makes very little allowance for how much you have paid in or drawn out. Let’s switch the scenario from a wealthy individual choosing to live overseas and not contribute to a person that comes from 3 generations of non contributors that is based in the UK and is a nett drain on the system. Are the entitled to be cared for by the state? The answer is yes under the present system just as Lewis Hamilton is entitled to live and pay taxes where ever he chooses under the same, current system.

Yep another non resident & passport holder (quite useful as I can still travel and not end up stateless) imagine the fun when I get an Aussie passport some idiot will want me paying taxes in every country I’ve taken a dump in next.

19 Races 18 not in the UK, at about a week each with travel and the rest. So 18 weeks not living in the UK, throw in some testing and a holiday or 2 and then He’s up to about 50% of his time on the road at a minimum. Perfectly reasonable to pick somewhere to live and pay your taxes. The system doesn’t fall down because we are all not multi millionaire playboys who can afford to live places like that.

I’m sure the same logic would apply to Mark Cavendish

He has three homes, one on the Isle of Man which he says will always be his real home, a home in Essex which he shares with his wife, and has a training base in Quarrata, Tuscany, Italy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cavendish
He should be paying tax back in the IoM….

If I was from the IOM and felt that Mark Cavendish had moved to England to avoid paying IOM taxes, I would be pretty disappointed.

That seems unlikely as the IOM is a similar financial pariah state to Monaco, and in my opinion like the channel isles, should not be a protectorate of the UK and should be ostracised by the international community.

Like Monaco does with France the IOM benefits from the international agreements, governance and stability provided by the higher tax state of the UK, but does not contribute to it.

IOM and Monaco are financial pariah states!
That’s the funniest thing I have read for ages.
Just like some people choose to use the tax free allowance of an ISA these states have framed their tax regulations in a way that suits their own needs.
You seem to forget that all these wealthy tax exiles live expensive lifestyles that employ the citizens of the financial pariah states in jobs that would not exist.

these states have framed their tax regulations in a way that suits their own needs.

Strange that they are protectorates of the Uk or France then, why don’t they show true independence and go their own way, see how that actually works out for them when they are not party to all the advantages that they currently have but don’t contribute to.

What makes you think that we have forgotten this?
What is being discussed is a moral judgement and you made no attempt to refute it you simply explained that they did it because it suits them and they employ people to do it. None of this is in dispute what is in dispute is whether this is a moral or not.

The system doesn’t fall down because we are all not multi millionaire playboys who can afford to live places like that

Who suggested it did?

IOM and Monaco are financial pariah states!
That’s the funniest thing I have read for ages.

Well until quite recently Monaco was on the OECD list of financial pariah states, it was only removed from the list on the basis of unfilled promises that Monaco had made and as a sign of goodwill.

So I’m not entirely sure why it’s the funniest thing that you have read for ages.

Who suggested it did?

A few over the last few pages…

IMHO if an individual thinks an ISA is OK then they have no moral right to question another persons legal tax management. Individual opinion may differ and thankfully we are all able voice an opinion in the Free World.

For example?

I may have missed it but some were suggesting that if we all stopped paying tax we were in trouble. Which seems to be so obviously true we should just accept it
That is not the same thing as you posted.

IMHO if an individual thinks an ISA is OK then they have no moral right to question another persons legal tax management. Individual opinion may differ and thankfully we are all able voice an opinion in the Free World

So you have a right to the view that your morals support, but I don’t have the right to the view my morals support. How odd.

IMHO if an individual thinks an ISA is OK then they have no moral right to question another persons legal tax management

Not this again Its a mobius strip of a thread this one

It does seem a tad hypocritical to criticise LH for minimising his taxes in the letter and spirit of the law, whilst avoiding tax on savings by using ISAs etc. How many of us could afford to pay more tax and support those less fortunate than ourselves, but instead only pay the minimum we owe?

At least LH has likely already paid far more into the UK system than he can ever take out. Contrast that with someone managing their work hours so they don’t hit the top rate of tax, using their full ISA and pension contribution allowances, claiming child benefit etc.

Contrast that with someone managing their work hours so they don’t hit the top rate of tax,

Do you even have a basic understanding of how tax works? If you earn more you will take home more, no matter what tax bracket you hit.

And I would also say that tax havens do not fall within the spirit of the law, the law has not kept up with their impact in the global market and has fallen well short of dealing with them.

Yes thanks, I do. The 40% marginal rate is still a strong incentive not to earn more, even if you are lucky enough to keep 60% of what you earn. The 62% marginal rate above £100k even more so. If you work a fixed 40 hour week for a fixed salary I can see why you wouldn’t have this perspective, and will obviously never turn down a raise.

Do you even have a basic understanding of how tax works?

Excellent question – google income and substitution effects re tax.

The 40% marginal rate is still a strong incentive not to earn more

If you like biting off your nose to spite your face

It’s a bit more complicated than that though isn’t it? Suppose I have a job that pays me £32k which I like. It’s enjoyable work with great colleagues and the commute is easy. I see a new job though that’s a bit further away, and I don’t think I’ll enjoy it as much, but it pays £35k. Maybe that extra £3k is worth it? I can buy myself that bling carbon frame for Christmas! Oh wait, I’ll only get to keep £1,800. Screw it I’ll stay where I am.

Matt24k

IMHO if an individual thinks an ISA is OK then they have no moral right to question another persons legal tax management. Individual opinion may differ and thankfully we are all able voice an opinion in the Free World

AA

So you have a right to the view that your morals support, but I don’t have the right to the view my morals support. How odd.

Please read what you quoted specifically “Individual opinion may differ and thankfully we are all able voice an opinion in the Free World”
Just to save any confusion I was trying to point out that we are all entitled to an opinion although you may not agree with mine nor I agree with yours on this matter.

It’s a bit more complicated than that though isn’t it? Suppose I have a job that pays me £32k which I like. It’s enjoyable work with great colleagues and the commute is easy. I see a new job though that’s a bit further away, and I don’t think I’ll enjoy it as much, but it pays £35k. Maybe that extra £3k is worth it? I can buy myself that bling carbon frame for Christmas! Oh wait, I’ll only get to keep £1,800. Screw it I’ll stay where I am.

So you’re blaming the tax system for making quality of life decisions? I believe that is also THM infereance by grasping at the theory “income and substitution effects re tax”.

Frankly it is rather bizarre reasoning.

There’s nothing bizarre about it at all. People respond to economic incentives in all areas of their lives. It’s the fact some seem to think it’s immoral when others do it but fine when they do it that I find hypocritical.

😀

It’s a bit more complicated than that though isn’t it?

It is now you have complicated it it was not when you made the point.

So basically they dont move for a variety of reasons then.

It makes no sense to deny a wage rise and IMHO no one has ever been sat in the same job , been offered more money and said no thanks as I will only get 60% of it or 40% of it so I will work for less money to avoid some tax.

It is STW so I am sure someone will claim it but I have never met anyone who did this

If I were to hit a daft tax band like the 62% one I’d seriously consider dropping my hours or look at alternative options first. On the 20 to 40 jump then you aren’t earning enough to make it worthwhile enough to worry about changing behaviour IMO.

There is no 62% tax band, the highest rate of tax in the uk is 45%

People respond to economic incentives in all areas of their lives.

Although, according to your example earning more isn’t one of those incentives.

There is no 62% tax band, the highest rate of tax in the uk is 45%

It’s an effective marginal rate due to the gradual withdrawal of personal allowance.

It’s an imaginary rate based on the premise that someone earning 100-120k isn’t taxed on the total.

Earn £110,000 in 2015/2016 and you’ll take home £69,126.
Over the year you’ll pay £35,403 income tax and £5,471 in National Insurance.

It is not imaginary, it is the marginal rate at that income level. For every pound you earn over the margin of 100,000, you will only take home 38p until you get to 120,000.

For every pound you earn over the margin of 100,000, you will only take home 38p until you get to 120,000.

A great way to make a point but quoting the overall % of tax paid is much better (hint it’s closer to 36% of your income)
http://www.incometaxcalculator.org.uk/?yr=2016&age=0&time=1&ingr=120000#

62% marginal rate explained here:

Paying 62 & tax rate

Other pretend stuff available here.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_12?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=harry%20potter&sprefix=harry+potter%2Caps%2C161

It’s not pretend at all – I suspect if you’re suggesting that you don’t understand the concept of marginal tax rates – and given the discussion was about the incentive to earn a bit more, the marginal rate is a far more useful measure than the overall tax rate.

Note: this post contains no content concerning the morality or otherwise of earning more than £100k (a level I doubt I’ll ever get anywhere near)

If you have a business that has fixed costs of £1,000 and income of £2,000 and you are offered a job which will give you further income of £100 for no increase in cost, have you earned £100 for that job or £52.

It is real and it does influence behaviour. It’s actually quite common to use the tax system to influence behaviour. High taxes on cigarettes to discourage smoking, tax reliefs to encourage savings (cycle to work schemes to encourage expensive bike purchases). It’s just that sometimes it’s a side effect rather than desired outcome.