Almost £4b more in cuts coming in the budget.

[redfox]

I think Eric you really should follow the party line more as opposed to striking out on your own - the link you provided was not exactly full of glowing praise now was it.

 

As for suggesting it was a troll - says the resident SF tory party troll.

 

I can however well understand how you have not made comment on the good fortune of the Chancellor and his dividend payment - from a company who has not paid Corporation tax for 7 years. I am sure you will tell us all they are just adhering to the tax system we have - just like so many other companies and individuals who seem to think payment of tax is optional.

[Berberis]

That is what you think?

 

You balance this one, couple one has been together 30 years but never wants to get married, they don't believe in it.

Couple two, guy falls in love after one night sex and gets married next day.

 

now which couple gets the better deal when only one partner works, go figure and balance it out.

UK tax system is one of the most old fashioned barbarian systems I have ever seen and I have paid taxes in three countries.

 

Your examples is ill thought out as you cannot get married the next day in the UK. You have to give at least 28 days notice.

[foxy lady]

I can however well understand how you have not made comment on the good fortune of the Chancellor and his dividend payment - from a company who has not paid Corporation tax for 7 years. I am sure you will tell us all they are just adhering to the tax system we have - just like so many other companies and individuals who seem to think payment of tax is optional.

 

This does seem to be an important issue with folks desperate to find a straw to cling too. You might or might not be aware that Grangemouth refinery and chemical works pays no corporation tax either, despite having a turnover running into hundreds of millions.

The reason is simple. You only pay corporation tax if the company makes a profit. So if you pay out everything in salaries, pensions, wages, VAT and dividends there is no company profit left to tax. However those picking up salaries, wages and dividends do pay the tax on them. The tax on dividends being 10% makes it a pretty standard way for small family businesses to run their affairs. It is part of our tax system and is neither tax evasion or tax avoidance. It is called running a business.

Edited March 14, 2016 by foxy lady

[Berberis]

This does seem to be an important issue with folks desperate to find a straw to cling too. You might or might not be aware that Grangemouth refinery and chemical works pays no corporation tax either, despite having a turnover running into hundreds of millions.

The reason is simple. You only pay corporation tax if the company makes a profit. So if you pay out everything in salaries, pensions, wages, VAT and dividends there is no company profit left to tax. However those picking up salaries, wages and dividends do pay the tax on them. The tax on dividends being 10% makes it a pretty standard way for small family businesses to run their affairs. It is part of our tax system and is neither tax evasion or tax avoidance. It is called running a business.

 

Sorry but this is wrong and I'm sure it's just a mistake.

 

Dividends are paid from profit, not before profit and corporation tax is 20%.

[the fonz]

 

What's different now?

 

House prices.

 

'In the north-east, the most affordable region in England and Wales, the proportion of income spent on property has almost doubled in 20 years, increasing from 3.4 times the median income of the region in 1995 to 6.1 times the median income in 2012.'

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/02/housing-market-gulf-salaries-house-prices

 

And with the current government completely failing to stop developers land banking the problem is only going to get worse.

Edited March 14, 2016 by the fonz

[dutch]

Your examples is ill thought out as you cannot get married the next day in the UK. You have to give at least 28 days notice.

 

That example was only a hypothetical example, nobody gets married in one day.

 

How about this more realistic situation: couple a is 25 years lovingly together and their loving relation has grown and risen over years but they don't want to get married, they don't believe in it.

Couple b gets married soon and the wife violently abuses the husband and finally kills him (read the Sharon Edward story).

 

What balance and preference is there in the tax system, does it benefit the violent married couple prior to the murder, or the normal unmarried couple?

Edited March 14, 2016 by dutch

[Berberis]

That example was only a hypothetical example, nobody gets married in one day.

 

A hypothesis is based on fact. Your example is not hypothetical as it is unattainable in the UK under the law. Your entire argument was based on a situation that cannot happen.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2016 at 11:22 ----------

 

How about this more realistic situation: couple a is 25 years lovingly together and their loving relation has grown and risen over years but they don't want to get married, they don't believe in it.

Couple b gets married soon and the wife violently abuses the husband and finally kills him (read the Sharon Edward story).

 

What balance and preference is there in the tax system, does it benefit the violent married couple prior to the murder, or the normal unmarried couple?

 

Personal beliefs do not trump the law. If you don't believe in marriage, that's your choice, but don't demand the same rights.

 

Marriage is not the same as just living together.

[nightrider]

I watched the Marr show and agreed with most of John McDonalds heartfelt wishes for improvements to peoples lives.

Where I would disagree with J M is his utter naivety on how to pay for the improvements.

He makes it all sound so simple,as though money can be magiced out of thin air (an unfortunate Socialist belief).

 

Isn't that exactly how money is created? Admittedly mostly by banks, and not governments.

 

http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-money/

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2016 at 12:05 ----------

 

50p in every £100 of public spending. All depends on how local councils see fit to distribute these cuts I supose.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2016 at 08:25 ----------

 

 

You have it wrong. Cuts on public spending do not go hand in hand with tax hikes.

 

The Uk has a pretty good balance of taxation in my opinion. Wealth creators feel they can do business while we have things like the living wage and large strides in the personal allowance.

 

Calling for higher tax on high earners just for the sake of it, is just jealousy.

 

It criticises tax cuts for high earners, rather than asking for tax rises on what they are paying.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2016 at 12:21 ----------

 

This does seem to be an important issue with folks desperate to find a straw to cling too. You might or might not be aware that Grangemouth refinery and chemical works pays no corporation tax either, despite having a turnover running into hundreds of millions.

The reason is simple. You only pay corporation tax if the company makes a profit. So if you pay out everything in salaries, pensions, wages, VAT and dividends there is no company profit left to tax. However those picking up salaries, wages and dividends do pay the tax on them. The tax on dividends being 10% makes it a pretty standard way for small family businesses to run their affairs. It is part of our tax system and is neither tax evasion or tax avoidance. It is called running a business.

 

I'm not suggesting these companies did it, but there have been recent high profile cases where multinational corporations claimed they made no profit in the UK to avoid paying tax (but it is now alleged this was not the case and they had misled HMRC and other foreign tax authorities). So it does seem to be possible to use artificial structures to minimise tax by misdirection and it does seem to be not so uncommon (for large multinationals).

[Anna B]

Interesting that Osborne backed off on Pensions because of the backlash and turned instead to a minority group who by definition are weak, vulnerable and powerless, ie the Disabled. He hasn't got the guts to go for anyone who can fight back.

 

In a so-called 'civilized society', it's a disgrace, pure and simple.

[Berberis]

Interesting that Osborne backed off on Pensions because of the backlash and turned instead to a minority group who by definition are weak, vulnerable and powerless, ie the Disabled. He hasn't got the guts to go for anyone who can fight back.

 

In a so-called 'civilized society', it's a disgrace, pure and simple.

 

How do you know he switched? How do you not know the changes to disability allowances were not part of the budget?

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2016 at 13:00 ----------

 

It criticises tax cuts for high earners, rather than asking for tax rises on what they are paying.

 

What tax cuts?