Why Britain needs a worldwide tax

Cliff D'Arcy
by Lovemoney Staff Cliff D'Arcy on 15 August 2012  |  Comments 33 comments

The USA boosts its tax take by taxing its citizens on their worldwide earnings. Should the UK follow suit?

Why Britain needs a worldwide tax

The British tax system is incredibly, fiendishly complicated. As proof, Tolley's Tax Guide -- the definitive manual for UK taxation -- stretches to a barely believable 11,500 pages. 

Our main taxes include income tax, National Insurance, Value Added Tax, fuel duty, Council Tax and Inheritance Tax -- and many more. 

Despite this jumble of taxes, the UK government still spends more than it earns. In 2012/13, this spending is expected to exceed tax revenues by more than £91 billion. Ouch! 

Critics of this tax bureaucracy, notably The Taxpayers' Alliance, argue that our tax system should be completely overhauled, shortened and simplified. I agree, because I feel that the UK's tax structure has become a complicated, time-consuming labyrinth to navigate, even for low earners. 

The American way 

That said, I've been mulling over a different approach to UK taxation that is already used across the Atlantic in the good old US of A. In the UK, residents are taxed only on their domestic earnings and gains, whereas, American citizens are taxed on their entire worldwide income. 

In the United States, US citizens and resident aliens (foreigners living and/or working in the US) are required by law to declare all foreign earnings and gains and pay US taxes on these. Also, for US citizens living abroad, the rules on declaring income and paying taxes are broadly the same as if they were resident in the US. 

Americans can avoid being taxed in the US only by renouncing their citizenship and, in effect, by handing back their passports. 

Not declaring foreign income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a criminal offence on which the IRS harshly cracks down. Likewise, the IRS requires US taxpayers to declare on their tax returns any foreign bank or investment accounts -- or face penalties, interest, fines and even imprisonment. 

In short, the IRS takes a very dim view of Americans who seek to hide foreign assets, income and gains, as it wants to collect the taxes due on these. 

The UK's huge tax gap 

The UK has around 31 million taxpayers, most of whom are permanently resident and work in the United Kingdom. Together, these adults pay the majority of the nearly £592 billion in taxes that the government expects to collect this tax year. 

Despite this tax burden (which averages more than £19,000 per taxpayer), the UK's tax revenues fall short of its spending by more than an eighth (13.3%). In other words, merely to balance the books, the coalition would have to increase all taxes by nearly a sixth (15.5%). 

Since this can't be done without collapsing Britain's economy, our government desperately needs new sources of taxes. So, how about following in America's footsteps by introducing taxes on worldwide income? 

Why not do as the US does? 

What would be the main impact of this radical change to our tax system? Quite simply, UK residents with foreign assets, income and capital gains would be forced to pay UK taxes on these foreign earnings. 

Thus, people with rental properties overseas, those owning foreign shares and collecting foreign dividends, and anyone with other sources of income from abroad would have to cough up UK taxes as if these foreign assets were based here. 

In effect, this would be very similar to how the US tax system currently operates. 

Winners and losers 

Of course, as with any major change to the tax system, switching to worldwide taxation would create both winners and losers. 

The biggest winners would be the vast majority of British adults who don't own any overseas assets and have zero foreign income. For at least nine out of ten taxpayers, their tax bills would be unchanged and life would go on as normal. 

Obviously, for the small minority of British residents who do own foreign assets (many of whom are in the top 1% of earners), their tax bills could rise significantly. Then again, thanks to 'double taxation' treaties between the UK and many advanced economies, their overall tax bill (UK plus foreign combined) could hardly change at all. 

Nasty for non-doms 

Perhaps the biggest group to be hit by this change would be 'non-doms' (non-domiciled individuals). These folk live and/or work in the UK, but dodge the full force of HM Revenue & Customs by claiming domicile abroad, usually in their country of birth. 

As things stand today, non-doms pay UK taxes on their UK earnings, but not on foreign income. However, after living in the UK for seven years, non-doms must either pay UK tax on their worldwide income or pay a flat tax of £30,000 a year to keep their foreign income outside of the UK tax net. 

This creates the bizarre situation where a non-dom can be permanently resident in the UK, have foreign assets in the billions of pounds, yet contribute just £30,000 to this nation's upkeep. For some non-doms, all of their income is foreign, so a lucky few pay no UK taxes on income whatsoever. 

It's estimated that there are up to 200,000 non-doms living in the UK, but this population has declined since boom turned to bust in 2007. Many of these people are super-rich, live in the most expensive parts of London, and enjoy all that England's capital has to offer -- including the legal and physical protection of which Britain is rightly proud. 

In summary, while there are many arguments for and against worldwide taxation, it works in the world's biggest economy. Thus, I suspect that it would work equally well over here. Frankly, we have nothing to lose but our foreign oligarchs and insanely high London house prices! 

More: Avoid tax with an ISA | How to get a tax refund |  Talking about your inheritance is not evil

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (33)

  • teafoo
    Love rating 47
    teafoo said

    "Our government ... needs new sources of taxes."

    There has to be two sides to this - Income and Expenditure, so surely reducing the amount the government spends would help to balance the books?

    Why do we only hear about 'what can we tax next', and not 'where can we save waste'?

    Taxes would be a little more palatable if only we felt the money would be spent wisely and effectively.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  5 loves
  • blazeaway
    Love rating 1
    blazeaway said

    Well if this was to happen then I woould be a loser as off to work in the middle east in a zero tax location. If my income was to be taxed then wouldn't go as the inconvenience and hardship would not be worth it

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • bazzamail
    Love rating 0
    bazzamail said

    This article is rubbish!

    UK residents do pay tax on their worldwide income and gains except for the few that are entitled to remittance basis. The main difference between the UK and US systems is that the US taxes citizens even if they are not resident in the USA. Thus they have to pay tax both in their country of residence and in the US. This can cause US citizens living outside of the US big problems with trying to claim relief for the double taxation in one or other territory because the two systems will inevitable not fit well together.

    Put forward stupid ideas like this if you must,Yahoo!, but at least get a writer that knows what he/she is talking about.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    Cliff - you think that the taxation system in the USA works? US economy is currently somewhere between the 'U-bend' and the soil pipe.

    The super rich are happy to renounce citizenships and their money buys an awful lot of legal and physical protection wherever they are. There are numerous other territories with flat rate tax systems including the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, if we start with ones a mere helicopter jaunt from mainland Britain. In continental Europe, passports are not stamped, so proving a country of 'domicile' for someone with half a dozen homes and who may have breakfast in London and dinner in Rome is impossible. Add several months of the year in international waters on a luxury yacht and things are further complicated. Those foreign oligarchs pay more in VAT than they ever will in income tax.

    Trying to stir up momentum for an absurd tax system based on jealousy and some childish notion of 'equality' hasn't worked for the idiot Obama and will not work anywhere else in the world. Money only misses taxation at certain stages from being 'earned' to being spent. Even drug barons and lunatic African dictators have to spend their ill-gotten on goods at some stage. The cartel head in South America or the Triad boss in China has contributed more to the UK economy buying a Range Rover and Jaguar than most 'non-doms' pay in income tax.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • Henry-GBG
    Love rating 46
    Henry-GBG said

    Many of these people are super-rich, live in the most expensive parts of London, and enjoy all that England's capital has to offer -- including the legal and physical protection of which Britain is rightly proud.

    Well done Cliff d'Arcy! You have just made the case of land value taxation. An ad valorem tax on the annual rental value of land. If these people live in the most expensive and desirable places, land values are high. If they own the places they will pay the land value tax themselves. If they are tenants their landlord will pay it out of the massive rent charged to live in desirable locations.

    It would be unjust to make British residents, regardless of citizenship, pay tax on incomes earned in other countries. It is up to the governments of those other countries to collect what is due to them. And double taxation agreements have to be observed.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • sippag
    Love rating 7
    sippag said

    As far as I know, if you have foreign earnings anywhere in the world you are supposed to declare them. I did notice of course that you then mention capital wealth. This of course has always been a Liberal/Socialist target for tax. As mentioned above the real problem is spending which was out of control before labour came in and is now much worse. The interest we pay on borrowing is total waste. The tax system is rubbish, designed by accountant for accountants. As we do not have ID cards we are lost before we start. If every citizen over 16 had to fill out a simple tax form/declaration relating to their income, this would show up the thousands who live under the radar, as well as providing proof, if income is found later.

    We are on the road to ruin and it appears unstoppable. The culprits.

    Government Officials, Politicians and Union Officials. The Public have supported them in this spend spend spend world that we live in.

    Be cheerful the end is nigh

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • alan brown
    Love rating 0
    alan brown said

    the writer starts talking about how coplexed the tax system is in the u.k then sergests ways to make it even more complacated what dose he want. He shoud be a burocrat he is well suited for the job

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 265
    oldhenry said

    Taxaton will only getmore complicated, not less. The government is run by lawyers and abetted by accountants that just revel in the legislation. Do not forget the accountants pay for the political party conferences etc. They really rule.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Susanne
    Love rating 22
    Susanne said

    Your article proceeds from two entirely flawed assumptions:

    1. First assumption: The tax system in the UK is more complicated than in the US. No, it is not. As someone who has paid taxes in the USA for 20 years and in the UK for the past 8, I should know. The tax system here is fairly simple for most users: if you're making less than £100,000/year, you don't even fill out a tax form, and if you are in the lucky upper percentile, the self-assessment tax form is super-simple and obvious--compared to the truly fiendish forms that everyone has to fill out every year in the US. (Most people over there pay a tax accountant to do it for them--to handle the forms and to find the loopholes that result in fat tax returns).

    2. Second flawed assumption: US expats actually PAY the taxes they owe. You are joking, right?

    The way expat taxes work in the USA is this: you don't declare foreign earnings up to $88,000 (currently around £56,000). On everything above that, you pay 33% taxes to the US government, no matter whether you've already been taxed on this same money in the country in which you made it. So let's say you're living in the UK, have a US passport, and make £100,000/year. In the UK, you're a 41% tax payer. On £44,000 of your income, you will pay a whopping 74% tax, 41% to the UK and 33% to the US.

    Is it any wonder nobody actually does this? And if the US tax system is so much simpler, transparent and more efficient, then why does Mitt Romney pay less than 13% tax on his multiple millions?

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Hardtruth
    Love rating 66
    Hardtruth said

    The current frankinstein tax system is the nightmare spawn of Gordon Brown. In 1997 Tolley's tax guide was 4,998 pages, 43% the size of the recent version. Only one thing Gordon Brown did that is meritorious and that was keeping UK PLC out of the Euro. Everything else he meddled with, most notably treasury and taxation, has been calamitous.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • mumtaz
    Love rating 3
    mumtaz said

    Other than saying that we should do it because the USA does, this piece provides no rationale for a global tax - it would be a "passport tax". The rationale for a government to tax a person is to get them to pay for some of the (publicly provided and maintained physical, legal, commercial infrastructure) costs that allowed them to make the money. For earnings abroad, there is no justification for the UK Government to tax: what costs did those earnings incur for the UK?

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Talent
    Love rating 77
    Talent said

    The tax laws are made by the scum with the most to gain.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Aitken B
    Love rating 109
    Aitken B said

    TAX is a necessary evil. Its purpose is to pay for services wanted by the people to be provided by the community. Government has no money. They spend our money on our behalf and they should spend every penny of our money with great care keeping expenditure to a minimum..

    Unfortunately successive governments have not adhered to the blindingly obvious principles above. They misuse TAX for social engineering depending on their how political dogma dictates and on costly vanity projects. Having perpetrated this nonsense politicians realised that they were in control of the revenue as well as the expenditure with a largely compliant population allowing them to "get away with it". I won't list all the abuses of our tax pounds - about all the vanity projects that have cost us dear - about all the failed dogma-driven projects - you all know them very well and if you don't, just spend an hour or two on the TaxPayers' Alliance website.

    Remember that TAX is to a politician is like Crack Cocaine is to an addict.

    Also remember that Tax comes in many forms. Just today we have learned that "First" have won the west coast rail franchise and I understand that it is by paying much more than Virgin was offering. No doubt the relevant politician will crow about how much (s)he has made for the taxpayer. But just have a thought about who will be paying "First" so they can pay the treasury.

    There is no way politicians will dramatically change the present arrangements. A phrase including excreta and doorsteps comes to mind.

    If we want change we will have to DRIVE them to do it but that take organisation and collective action.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • nosbort
    Love rating 125
    nosbort said

    The rationale for this article seems to be that a wider ranging and higher tax take is necessary because the tax take is too low to pay for the 'services' that the state deems it necessary or desirable to provide. This is looking at the problem the wrong way around. The cure for a tax shortfall is not to increase tax but to reduce spending. The state does so many things 'on our behalf' that are either unnecessary altogether or wildly inefficient that it is entirely possible to reduce tax and balance the budget by cutting out the dross. That's the way to fix this country's tax deficit.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • r
    Love rating 67
    r said

    It's quite amazing when you consider that income tax has only been around for a relatively short time. For centuries, the plebs paid tithes - 10% - to the Lord of the Manor (or equivalent) and that seemed to be enough.

    There is little in these responses about reducing Government expenditure. @teafoo and @Aitken B seem to have hid the nail on the head.

    Cliff says that the UK has a £90bn p.a. deficit; if we pulled out of things we can't afford and don't want, we could save a lot of that within the life of this parliament. The EU is costing us about £18bn gross p.a.; goodness knows what Afganistan, Iran and bailing out the banks (because we can't do without them!!!) are costing us.

    Most of these costs rise each year; did anyone know that the EU has set up an office block in Barbados with 30 staff to administer the French controlled islands? It's costing £2m a year to run although, to keep costs down, they are only staffing it with senior officials.

    I reiterate; we need a Government that listens to and responds to what the population wants. I think that this could not be a governmant of professional politicians - it needs people who can balance a housekeeping budget.

    It could happen; the way things are going, there will be a revolution here one day!

    r.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    The article is well researched, but I think it's a complex problem needing a well researched solution. The rich do avoid or evade their taxes. We need a simpler tax system that is more difficult to avoid. Many wealthy people have their wealth tied up in companies and have a variety of legal, but immoral ways of avoiding tax. The system is too complex and with the average tax burden more than the typical earnings of many, it is ludicrous. The system is top heavy. The economic system is like a pyramid, with relatively few super rich at the top and lots of poorer people at the bottom. We need money to flow vertically so the poor get more, but it flows laterally as the rich buy their luxury items from companies owned by their rich friends.

    Particularly immoral is the way the sick and particularly the mentally ill are often blamed for the state of the economy. The people who are least able to contribute are blamed for a failing economy and the super rich parade around and have people who earn less than average income come out and wave flags! There is occasionally a backlash against the unfairness as we saw with riots last year and so the inequalities in society are in no one's interest. The 'security' at the Olympics wasn't because they feared the super rich, the super rich feared a backlash from the poor. The army and police will always protect the super rich, royalty and the aristocracy; always has, always will. Paid servants...

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    @Mike10613

    'it flows laterally as the rich buy their luxury items from companies owned by their rich friends.'

    So if an oligarch buys an executive jet, exactly which rich friends would those be?

    Who also are these random 'poor' who 'deserve' more? I live on much less than average earnings and am very happy with the work life balance I have. We surely need to look after the sick and elderly who deserve to be looked after - but just what edict in nature, religion or civilised society gives a reason for any of us to support the lazy, feckless or just plain stupid?

    The logic of jealousy means people pillory a billionaire who may or may not have worked incredibly hard to build up an empire, but somehow a boring couple winning an obscene amount on the lottery is 'OK' because they are 'like us'. The first thing lottery winners do is find out how to keep all their money and it should be noted that unlike the USA, winnings are NOT taxed here.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • RichardSowler
    Love rating 17
    RichardSowler said

    I regret that this post is dangerously inaccurate. It implies that UK resident individuals are taxable only on their UK source income. In fact, UK residents are taxable on their worldwide income and anyone failing to report such income is in danger of penalties and even prosecution.

    Non-dom UK residents are also taxable on their worldwide income to the extent that it is remitted (or deemed to be remitted) to the UK and, as correctly stated, are liable for the fixed £30,000 charge after seven years.

    Non-UK residents are still taxable in the UK on our UK source income, such as dividends from UK companies and interest from UK banks.

    The UK's discrepancy between tax collected and spending is a result of chronic overspending, which the Government is now striving to do something about. Obviously, they would like to improve the tax take, but they need clear and effective laws to prevent avoidance and it is the fault of successive governments that they have failed to achieve this. Preaching about morality and tax is no substitute. People have a responsibility to provide for their families and if that can best be done by tax-efficient planning, then nobody has any right to criticise.

    rs@taxlaw.im

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • nosbort
    Love rating 125
    nosbort said

    @RichardSowler

    I agree almost entirely with what you say, however, you have made a common error in one respect. You say " but they need clear and effective laws to prevent avoidance and it is the fault of successive governments that they have failed to achieve this.". I think that you are talking here about evasion not avoidance, or do you want to scrap ISAs etc?

    Evasion is illegal and should be prosecuted

    Avoidance is legal and is how you avoid paying too much tax. (arguably it is your duty).

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • acwakeford
    Love rating 0
    acwakeford said

    We already pay tax on earnings made in the UK or made elsewhere and brought into the UK. If you are suggesting that a UK citizen working overseas should pay UK tax on his or her entire wage or income then you are wrong. I totally agree that if income is brought into the UK its subject to tax but if for example someone earns an income in Thailand, pays Thai tax, keeps it in a Thai bank account and spends it in Thailand, what business is that of the UK tax office?

    The government should be reducing its spending, scrapping and totally re-thinking its immigration / visa policy, not finding new ways to screw us!

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • thobruk
    Love rating 0
    thobruk said

    As a UK non-dom living in the USA myself, I don't think your proposal is going to do much to raid these offshore pots of gold that you imagine. Firstly, most of the people with money abroad are not millionaires. I'm a lowly software engineer working abroad, for example, not a drug lord. Secondly, there are tax treaties in place. These prevent double taxation. I, for example, would not be paying UK tax on my US earnings, because I already pay US tax on those earnings. Those with massive, hidden, coffers will continue hiding them and those law abiders like myself will be saddled with even more paperwork. Google 'FBAR' if you don't believe me. Take a look at the wranglings involved in the declaration of foreign accounts. It's far from the cut and dried raiding of hidden assets that you depict.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    I've read a few papers from the Tax Payers Alliance. According to them the National Debt stood at 7.9 trillions pounds in 2010. Just £300,000 for every houshold in Britain. That didn't happen to mention who we owe this money to. I read another paper that seems to be suggesting a 'negative income tax' system. This basically means cutting benefits and giving people an 'incentive' to work. I've heard stuff like this somewhere before...

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • edwardmk2879
    Love rating 57
    edwardmk2879 said

    If someone is working hard and subject to taxation, their first duty is to provide for their own family, and so avoiding tax is a duty to your own family. For politicians to lecture the public on morality is laughable. These are people who are addicted to spending other people's money. Where is the moral line in taxation? Harold Wilson's government thought it was 95%. That's where we're all heading if we roll over and just meekly accept whatever the government tells us it 'needs'. Tax should never be above 40% of a person's income. In the UK, taxation is out of control, just like the government's spending habits. No wonder there is an army of accountants and lawyers making a living by assisting citizens to avoid their legitimate earnings being confiscated by their own government.

    The whole British fiat money system has now descended into immorality. Due to the habit of government overspending, the National Debt is now so large that they are printing money to pay for their own bond issues. A small cabal of high echelon Bankers extract enormous profits from this process. Meanwhile, the vast majority of us see our savings diminished, our purchasing power diminished, and yet this same majority is largely blind to the fact that currency depreciation leading to price inflation is a deliberate Banking policy to socialise the debts they ran up over the last thirteen to twenty years of government.

    Those vulnerable members of society without jobs or on fixed incomes are being presented with a false premise, namely that richer people are to blame for their situation, and the cure is to tax these rich folk more. Increasing taxes to punitive confiscatory levels has been tried. There is a phenomenon represented by the 'Laffer' curve. No government has ever manged to increase revenues by increasing taxation beyond 40%. It actually has the opposite effect.

    I'd say to government..' Stop moralising, just reduce government waste, reduce income taxes, index link the personal allowance, referendum on the EU, get the Banking sector under control, and seriously look at going to a policy of sound money to stop defrauding the vulnerable in society.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • bengilda
    Love rating 77
    bengilda said

    Give Parliament/Government 2 years to reduce spending to match income, after which MPs of both houses cease to receive any emoluments and senior civil servants (and their equivalent in any public office and Quango) have their pay reduced to the level of a HEO and absolutely no bonuses to any public servants.

    It would be amazing to see the results.

    If they can't do the job then they don't get paid, get rid of them and try some others who can.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • coloratura
    Love rating 61
    coloratura said

    Thobruk is correct in that those people who earn money abroad and hide their tax payments e.g. drug pushers etc are hardly likely under the idea of an HMRC worldwide tax to say "OK it's a fair cop - here's the tax I owe you". It is only strict worldwide policing that will get the people who act illegally.

    If someone owns a property abroad but lives in the UK they have to declare it in the UK if they don't pay the tax abroad. If they are honest they will do so. Those who are not honest will always try to dodge the system anyway and it will cost billions of pounds and much extra paper work to collect it - and the people at HMRC have already shown that the system we have now has caused them to get people's taxes wrong on a large scale. Can you imagine what a worldwide system would do !!!!

    Then there's the global recession. Those people who saved all their lives and got to retirement age and brought a property abroad a few years ago before the recession hit have seen their incomes from renting their properties either drop considerably or become non-existant and have only been able to sell their properties at a huge loss.....so they will offset this against their tax bill. Can you imagine this on a worldwide scale with world-wide businesses (a clever but dodgy accountant will have a most enjoyable field day using this to a dishonest businesses advantage) !!! This would lose the nation much more revenue I suspect than it would collect.

    What we need is a much simpler tax system without all the paperwork that is deliberately meant to confuse so that unless you are a Tax Graduate/Accountant you will not understand it. Why not have a system where everybody is taxed at 10% up to £19,999 then 20% on £20,000 to £29,999, and so on up to 50% on £50,000 plus (the upper limit). Then just have Income minus Expenditure. National Insurance could also be simplified i.e. 1% up to £19,999, 2% yp to £29,999 etc to a maximum of 5% with all those over aged 60 being exempt (after all they will have probably paid in for a lifetime so let's give them a break after 40/50 years of contribution). This simpler system would then leave the people at HMRC to chase the real tax dodgers who are avoiding paying millions in tax and not just a few people who make genuine mistakes because the system is so complicated. Even expenditure could be just all added up and deducted rather than this % allowance for this and a different % allowance for that - just make it a simple % of the total spent irrespective of what it is for...it will save time and money for business and for HMRC.

    The M.P. who declared it "morally wrong" to pay by cash for goods in order to hide the tax is also someone who is legally allowed to spend £24,000 in expenses before producing a receipt whereas the rest of us have to account for every penny - how "moral" is that. If you want a tax system where people pay up then make it fair (and seen to be fair) for everybody and simple so that "tax really isn't taxing". Make it easier for everybody to pay it and complicated to avoid it....and give the people at HMRC a break and a chance to spend time getting the real tax dodgers who are doing this country of out millions.

    Just a couple of ways the nation can also save money (1) Get out of Europe...we spend billions per minute in belonging to it (M.P.'s want to be in it because they get huge salaries as Euro MP's) - remember we were promised (a) cheap food if we joined Europe...now where did that once disappear to (b) more leisure time (well that is true if you sre one of the unemployed with no job at all) (c) a referendum (not given by any party. (2) Do not allow people to claim benefits until they have paid into the system for at least 5 years unless they can prove they have made every effort to get a job over a reasonable period of time- actual proof required - a small interim payment can be made whist they look). It will stop people who really do not want from freeloading. We will also then have money for those who are genuinely disabled without dismissing their claims even if they are on deaths door (a man recently died a few weeks after he was told he was fit for work) or for those who really cannot get a job in a time of recession rather than the freeloaders. (3) Get rid of the loads of "chiefs" and paper-pusher (quangoes are one example) and give more respect to the "indians" who are the actual workers (the NHS is an example of this where big salaries are earned by outside management trusts (a few people with lots of money) who "loan" money at exhorbitant rates to the NHS on an unlimited timescale....what a legal fiddle they are!! - now HMRC could have a field day with them if we stopped this "legal loophole" - and yes I would change the law and tear up the contracts but then perhaps a few M.P's might be on the Boards of these trusts?). We could use the money saved to train and employ more nurses. (4) Stop all other legal loopholes.

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • dilbert999
    Love rating 8
    dilbert999 said

    Cliff, I'm afraid you've got your facts wrong from the very beginning. If you're UK resident, you do pay tax on your worldwide income (or at least, should).

    What is iniquitous about the US system, and what you also seem to be proposing, is that they tax on the basis of citizenship rather than residence, so that if you're a US citizen living abroad, you still have to pay tax to Uncle Sam. Why should you have to do that if you're not using the services (education, defence, environmental protection, etc.) for which taxes are raised?

    Report on 15 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    'a man recently died a few weeks after he was told he was fit for work'

    Gets my vote for the most unrelated statement, ever, sorry. As 'perfectly fit' people drop dead every day, a single anecdotal event has no bearing on the point being made. I'm sure there are plenty of career benefit spongers who would have a heart attack merely with the stress of being expected to earn a living. Very many people also die suddenly with the stress of retirement and NOT having to work.

    Report on 20 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • charles125
    Love rating 53
    charles125 said

    I'd just put a half percent tax on all bank transactions apart from pay and food/utility bills. it would earn an absolute fortune for the government.

    Report on 20 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    @electricblue, I don't think you need to worry about 'benefit spongers' who find it hard to make a living because of illness or disability getting £3,500 a year when we have the rich stashing a 1,000 X as much overseas tax-free each year. I have no objection to people being wealthy as long as they come by the money honestly and pay their taxes; all of them...

    Report on 20 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • webbens
    Love rating 2
    webbens said

    Isn't there a flaw in this... You end up paying tax twice, one to the foreign nation and one to your home nation?

    Report on 20 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • abisides
    Love rating 0
    abisides said

    I have always been baffled about tax brackets - why should someone on a lower income pay a smaller percentage of tax, than someone who earns more money? Surely if everyone was just taxed 25% (for example) then this would be fairer - it would mean every individual works a quarter of their day for the government, rather than for themselves. A lower earner's time is no more valuable than a higher earner's...

    Why should higher earners be penalised for being successful? Is there evidence to suggest that higher earners use more public services than lower earners, and are therefore somehow obliged to contribute a higher percentage of their earnings?

    I am self employed running my own business, but also work on a temporary basis via PAYE, and my tax codes make it hideously complicated for me to calculate my exact tax bill. Thank goodness for my accountant. I pay basic rate of around 23% on my PAYE jobs and a different tax rate altogether on my self employment - which, incidentally, HMRC demands a year in advance of me even working the jobs. How they can feel this is fair is beyond me. No wonder people want to evade tax - if I wasn't trying to become mortgage worthy, I'd probably consider it!

    Report on 20 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    @Mike

    The rich only have the obligation to pay 'all' the taxes they legally have to pay which means they aren't necessarily 'stashing' anything. Why does Jeremy Clarkson live in the Isle of Man? Register as a corporation and only pay £30K tax! I think the whole argument on income tax itself is contrived and artificial as Clarkson and others like him always pay more VAT on buying their cars and other goods than they do in income tax. I don't know where the benefits figure of a mere £3,500 comes from, Mike - there are plenty whose families milk the system for a hell of a lot more than that - I see the fruits of those amazing claims every day locally and I am just as angry for the genuine claimants who have to jump through hoops.

    Report on 20 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nickthecrip2
    Love rating 17
    nickthecrip2 said

    I doubt ANY UK government, regardless of party, would bring in something like the writer is suggesting. Not that I don't think it a good idea but simply because all the top MP's & their families, party members & large donors would be BIG losers should anything like the suggestion become law. They would simply never allow it to happen!

    Report on 20 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Virgin Money Credit Card MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.99% fee) Representative 17.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 17.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 17.9% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV4