Slim Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I have a small company. A company could not probably be much smaller than mine is currently. The zero rated thing seems pretty good to me. It simplifies the stuff I have to think when I would rather being thinking about the actual work. The filing fee is £320ish iirc. I can't imagine that would make a huge dent on the balance sheet of any even vaguely viable company. How do you mean about it buggering up a lot of small companies ? That filing fee is about six times what it was before zero rating. I also run a very small company that doesn't make much as I put the profits back in for growth, so I wasn't paying much tax, but now my filing costs have gone up sixfold. Probably doesn't affect a lot, only the very smallest, but it's an extra drain for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 He claimed that the numbers of £100,000 tax cap residents had increased from about 10 to someting like 88. Not sure of the exact figures. He said the tax income from those 88 paid in whole for the £550 lump sum being given to the low paid, again I think he said that went to 10.000 people. Not sure of the figures, have to wait for the Tynwald transcript. That's interesting. The only figures I have seen are John Wright's statement that only 49 had come in (against an expectation of 500). I would have thought that there would have been far more than 10 people here previously who would have benefitted from the cap. Obviously the 49 could have risen to 88 in the interim, but I simply don't believe 10. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 The 49 was from a reasonable source, reliable. It is now 6 months old If there were 10 and 49 came in then its 59, so 88 is only another 27 in 6 months If it was 27 then add 49 and get 76 so only 12 extra in 6 months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Of course, if these numbers are right (and 27 is rather more believable than 10, whilst the target of 500 seems highly optimistic), there is also the question of the average tax bill of existing rich individuals prior to the cap. If the 27 existing residents were worth £100 million each (taking a perhaps extreme example), then the tax lost to the cap, assuming incomes of 5% of net worth, would be £21.6million, before looking at the gain from incomers. If the numbers of the rich rise to 88, then the Treasury would see a net loss of £15.5 million. If, however, the existing 27 were worth £25 million each, there would be a gain to the Treasury of £2.7 million. Not huge. I have ignored personal allowances and 10% tax rates in these calculations. There are of course a great many things one can do to minimise tax liabilities, and it may well be that the very rich in fact paid much less in tax than I assumed in my models. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 This is why Gordon Brown is going on the offensive against the tax havens because they know that the UK rich will not be around to share the pain with everyone else, they'll happily relocate to somewhere where they will get a better deal. This could be our niche moving forwards. You may well be right. And low taxes alone do not make a tax haven - just a low-tax jurisdiction. There's not much he can do about that, other than removing our sovereignty, or interfering with the VAT arrangement. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 You may well be right. And low taxes alone do not make a tax haven - just a low-tax jurisdiction. There's not much he can do about that, other than removing our sovereignty, or interfering with the VAT arrangement.S It always intrigues me that other countries who borrow heavily and do not balance their books tend to blame more fiscally responsibly managed economies for having lower tax rates than they do. I guess if Gordon/UK Labour Government had managed the UK economy better, had sensible regulation of banks and not got involved in a couple of wars they could have had lower taxes. Very easy to blame other for one's own failings I still like the idea of keeping an increase in the tax cap in the 'future options' list. Given the numbers mentioned here a £50,000 increase would generate an additonal £4.5 million approx. For the 'super-rich' this would not be a big hardship compared with paying UK tax. Incidentally do the numbers of people involved include those situation where a husband and wife are both able to use the cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 It always intrigues me that other countries who borrow heavily and do not balance their books tend to blame more fiscally responsibly managed economies for having lower tax rates than they do. I guess if Gordon/UK Labour Government had managed the UK economy better, had sensible regulation of banks and not got involved in a couple of wars they could have had lower taxes. Very easy to blame other for one's own failings That is not a particularly useful comparison. The IOM has a tiny density of population and a very much less complex infrastructure to support. The island has done very well financially out of it's semi-detached relationship with the UK and therefore the EU - whilst having to share very few of the difficulties and responsibilities and costs. Many of the companies which operate here keeping people in jobs are here to support UK operations. The island's govt really only has to deal with internal matters. And yet much of our economy is effectively indirectly subsidized by the UK infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 It always intrigues me that other countries who borrow heavily and do not balance their books tend to blame more fiscally responsibly managed economies for having lower tax rates than they do. I guess if Gordon/UK Labour Government had managed the UK economy better, had sensible regulation of banks and not got involved in a couple of wars they could have had lower taxes. Very easy to blame other for one's own failings That is not a particularly useful comparison. The IOM has a tiny density of population and a very much less complex infrastructure to support. The island has done very well financially out of it's semi-detached relationship with the UK and therefore the EU - whilst having to share very few of the difficulties and responsibilities and costs. Many of the companies which operate here keeping people in jobs are here to support UK operations. The island's govt really only has to deal with internal matters. And yet much of our economy is effectively indirectly subsidized by the UK infrastructure. Agreed. Britain, for reasons that owe more to nostalgia than need, has maintained a larger than necessary military capability, which has been more than fully deployed in recent years. The island, with nearly fully employment, also has almost none of the costs of unemployment, disguised unemployment, and all the concomitant social ills that are such a huge drain on the UK. We are very lucky. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 We also don't have to pay for their roads, railways etc and a whole bunch of other infrastructure which we benefit from, directly and indirectly - and on which our economy depends. IOM based outposts of UK companies benefit even more directly from UK funded infrastructure and govt spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 We also don't have to pay for their roads, railways etc and a whole bunch of other infrastructure which we benefit from, directly and indirectly - and on which our economy depends. IOM based outposts of UK companies benefit even more directly from UK funded infrastructure and govt spending. Sssssh. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Could we please employ a rebel economist? Even if her plans don't work, she's prettier to look at than the current bunch of shopkeepers http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4816862n We'd still go bust, but in style... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Could we please employ a rebel economist? Even if her plans don't work, she's prettier to look at than the current bunch of shopkeepers http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4816862n We'd still go bust, but in style... Wow. The dismal science no more. Well spotted, Amadeus. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YISSER Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Speech finished. HELLO WILL FAMILY ALLOWANCE STILL BE TAXED?.AND I SEE THAT THE WONT WORK CANT WORK BRIGADE HAVE BEEN LOOKED AFTER AGAIN WHAT A SURPRISE.IE NO TAX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YISSER Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I SEE THAT THE WONT WORK CANT WORK BRIGADE HAVE BEEN LOOKED AFTER AGAIN, WHAT A SURPRISE.IE NO TAX. WILL FAMILY ALLOWANCE STILL BE TAXED?OF COURSE IT WILL BECAUSE WE ARE THE PEOPLE WITH FAMILYS WHO ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO GO TO WORK EVERYDAY!.WHY DONT WE ALL GO ON THE DOLE AND GET THESE ALLOWANCES SLAPPED IN OUR HANDS,ESPECIALLY NOW THAT THERE IS NO TAX TO PAY.MORE MONEY FOR FAGS AND DRINK YIPEE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 I SEE THAT THE WONT WORK CANT WORK BRIGADE HAVE BEEN LOOKED AFTER AGAIN, WHAT A SURPRISE.IE NO TAX. WILL FAMILY ALLOWANCE STILL BE TAXED?OF COURSE IT WILL BECAUSE WE ARE THE PEOPLE WITH FAMILYS WHO ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO GO TO WORK EVERYDAY!.WHY DONT WE ALL GO ON THE DOLE AND GET THESE ALLOWANCES SLAPPED IN OUR HANDS,ESPECIALLY NOW THAT THERE IS NO TAX TO PAY.MORE MONEY FOR FAGS AND DRINK YIPEE. If you'll earn more then do it! But why are allowance taxed? If it comes from the government then why tax that money so it can go back to the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.