Osborne discovers that the rich avoid paying tax

[ahinton]

Is this real? Could be fantasy, as it's also rather likely that the man won't actually be able to sell for more then £10k, and even if he does the markup you suggest is rather a good one. Suppose he actually sells for £15k. There'll be transport and auctioner's fees etc., so it's quite possible that he won't make much anyway. If he keeps the furniture for a while it's likely that insurers will value it highly, and take their not insubstantial cut. If your example is real, then someone was lucky. Otherwise I'd suggest that most trying to make money this way, and at the same time dodge some of the tax will actually lose rather than gain. If the gain is above around £8k there is the technical issue of CGT, and the morality question is something else!

It's an illustration and, depending upon how long the object has been in its owner's possession (not a factor that helps much with CGT liability any more), it's perfectly feasible is the purchaser has a good eye for a bargain; in the antiques world, it happens all the time. OF course insurance during ownership will be a mitigating factor but then if the owner is sensible enough he or she would have the item valued and insured separately or as part of a specific inventory by a specialist insurer so that he or she can successfully deduct the premium paid to insure the item from any CGT liability that might arise, just as he or she can do the same for acquisition, maintenance and disposal costs.

I don't know where your £8K figure comes from; the annual personal CGT allowance is £10,600, so double that for jointly owned items; spread a sale across two tax years and it doubles again (provided that one is careful how the sale contract is worded).

[ahinton]

Why ever shouldn't we expect a high quality health system funded nationally out of taxes?

We already have one; my point is that no such system can expect to be funded wholly out of taxes, especially as the net tax take falls when unemployment rises, which is usually at adverse economic times when the demands on the health service becaome greater. In addition, people live longer (partly because of the past successes of the health service) and, as medical technology and research develops, more treatments become possible and therefore expected.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

we have an system for health which makes many doctors and dentists comparatively wealthy irrespective of performance and resource utilisation ...[GP salary settlement, op theatre closures for consultant training day Fridays to name but a few ....]

[teamsaint]

The Jazzer is on the case.
We do pour a huge amount of cash into the NHS.

What we can get out in terms of treatments depends in part on where that money is going.
We used to spend less on bureaucracy than we now do, we have the highest paid doctors in Europe, and the drugs bill undoubtedly needs looking at .(Most GP's surgeries are like huge adverts for drug companies, ).
Also, and critically, we really should look at putting much more resource into prevention and holistic approaches, both as good in themselves, and as money savers.

As MrGG often says, saying that "we cannot afford all the healthcare we need" is part of the script.

Its the wars and the tax avoidance we can't afford !!

[teamsaint]

Double post...... sorry !!

[ahinton]

we have an system for health which makes many doctors and dentists comparatively wealthy irrespective of performance and resource utilisation ...[GP salary settlement, op theatre closures for consultant training day Fridays to name but a few ....]

I didn't say that it was perfect - but isn't something similar the case with all government services and private firms - i.e. that some people who work within them stand some sort of chance of becoming at least modestly wealthy as a consequence of having those positions in the first place? - and isn't that something about which nothing can ever really be done to eradicate it 100%? because someone somewhere will always find a way to make him/herself wealthier than the next person...

[ahinton]

The Jazzer is on the case.
We do pour a huge amount of cash into the NHS.

What we can get out in terms to treatments depends in part on where that money is going.
We used to spend less on bureaucracy than we now do, we have the highest paid doctors in Europe, and the drugs bill undoubtedly needs looking at .(Most GP's surgeries are like huge adverts for drug companies, ).

Much of this is broadly true, but then NHS has to act as a business because it deals with businesses all the time; its procurement bills for pharmaceuticals, surgical supplies, maintenance of hospitals, GP's consulting rooms &c., marketing and PR and heaven knows what else are almost all from the private firms with which it deals and, of course, the first of these involves considerable international involvement because of the number of drugs that are imported into UK. Pay the hospital doctors and GPs much less and they'll go seek better paid work elsewhere, most of it in the private sector; NHS has to pay these people in accordance with what they can get outside NHS otherwise too many of them would leave and go into private practice, either in UK or elsewhere. NHS can look at the drugs bill all it likes but can do little to control it unless it cuts back on some ordering; NHS doesn't and cannot set international prices that private pharmaceutical firms charge for their drugs. The bureaucracy CAN, however, be looked at and hopefully reduced.

Also, and critically, we really should look at putting much more resource into prevention and holistic approaches, both as good in themselves, and as money savers.

Agreed 100% - although, to be fair NHS does at least do some things along these lines already. Only this morning, at my local NHS GP's, a patient was telling the receptionist how the anti-smoking medication and prodecures that the practice has prescribed for him had given him a whole new lease of life and that he was delighted not to be able even to look at a cigarette any more; when I mentioned this en passant to the doctor, he said straight away that, on top of the obvious benefit to the patient, for every pound that the treatment had cost there would be a likely saving of at least £75 if it were successful in the long term (and although I don't know the source of that statistic, it's pretty clear that the practice accountant's been looking into the economic benefits of such procedures).

As MrGG often says, saying that "we cannot afford all the healthcare we need" is part of the script.

It's not quite, though, is it? I think that what's really mean here is that taxpayers cannot afford allthe healthcare that they might need just out of taxes alone - which is indeed the case.

Its the wars and the tax avoidance we can't afford !!

We certainly can't afford the wars (and all the other defence procurement mishandlings); the tax avoidance is another far more complex issue, as has already been discussed, especially since some of it is government sponsored and some more of it likely takes place only as an outcome of our woefully overbearing and unduly complex tax system. Incidentally, a colleague of mine has lodged a complaint against HMRC who had the gall to accuse him, in writing, of tax avoidance because he'd not paid the correct amount of tax, when the reason that he hadn't done so was purely because HMRC had failed to do its sums properly and charged him to little!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

more rich too rich ... do you want to live in a society that targets the fugitive rich as immigrants

it is not about fairness so much as open and competent government for all ... not the lobbies and the fat cats

it is not about fairness of taking the hit so much as fairness in creating growth ....

it is not about open season for plutocrats it is about Middlesbrough Merthyr Tydfil and Alloa having an economic social and cultural life .... not a ghetto of dependency and ignorance ...

[handsomefortune]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/video/2012/apr/12/jeffrey-sachs-us-economy-video

and 'the atlantic article' (above) are apt for this thread calum da jazbo. in 'the atlantic' comments 'income tax being of little hinderance to the rich, but keeps the aspirational firmly in their place'. or words to that effect.

i'm not sure anyone but the rich will want to live in some parts of london much longer, as it changes between now and the 2020s. yahoo have some very odd (as in strange) bits and bobs of 'news', like this one:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/property-developers-learn-londons-dukes-earls-080010973.html

as a response, might we clap, say it 'looks nice', or what?

stricter enforcement by the Charities Commission.

i so wish flosshilde! i also wish european funding was better monitored, and in a more longterm way too. i wish hm r&c hadn't been 'rearranged' to be less capable, efficient at monitoring the rich.

I wonder if the list of Dave's Dodgy Charities includes the one that Maude, Hague, Fox et al set up (Atlantic Bridge was it?) to promote British right-wing links with those in USA? Just the one 'employee', a Mr Werrity I think

They decided to close that when the Charity Commission began to notice that not much charitable work was being done, if I recall correctly

Apols if this has already been mentioned

no need to apologise amatuer51, the more focus on these aspects, so much the better imo. osborne's recent acknowledgement is designed as a distraction, and cameron's stuff about bogus orgs, will make citizens wonder why he doesn't take a look closer to home. the idea that 'charity' mainly happens in africa, and other far away places is a useful ploy. especially as uk services are cut, and the homeless rely on soup kitchens and other charity hand outs.

exploitation of the third sector is newly perceived a fabulous way of sucking out money originally targetting poorer people. the rich exploit the olde voluntary sector image of 'philanthropy' to hide their grubby intentions, and sticky fingers. exacerbated by the 'encouragement' that 'anyone' can allegedly 'start a school' for instance (even murdoch & gove); or start a charity, yet donations aren't publicly, and carefully enough examined, which is an important current aspect of discussion about the financial elite and their new methods of 'avoidance' of normal procedures and practises. fact is, 'the atlantic bridge' org should never have been allowed initially, yet it was.

it seems hm r&c are newly flabby; the charities commission toothless; and european money can be squandered by local authorities 'running away with the plot', power having been de centralised under torys. it feels like a free for all - for the elite. no wonder public chaos ie riots are perceived 'normal' in the circumstances, rather than 'a bug', (as 'the atlantic' mentions). tis a plutocracy, and the ideas that typically eminate from it are not 'pluralism', a mixture. instead, we suddenly find ourselves in an age of pure 100% out and out greed by a few. this shift should never have been termed 'globalisation' - 'gobbleisation' is far more accurate, but doesn't sound nearly as unifying, and altruistic of course.

anyway, back ontopic, to our own personal tax problems, and blaming ourselves, the societal 'solution' encouraged most, especially by dave and co, dodgey educational psychiatrists, and gps with no conscience but a ton of prozac to shift.

[amateur51]

[

no need to apologise amatuer51, the more focus on these aspects, so much the better imo. osborne's recent acknowledgement is designed as a distraction, and cameron's stuff about bogus orgs, will make citizens wonder why he doesn't take a look closer to home. the idea that 'charity' mainly happens in africa, and other far away places is a useful ploy. especially as uk services are cut, and the homeless rely on soup kitchens and other charity hand outs.

exploitation of the third sector is newly perceived a fabulous way of sucking out money originally targetting poorer people. the rich exploit the olde voluntary sector image of 'philanthropy' to hide their grubby intentions, and sticky fingers. exacerbated by the 'encouragement' that 'anyone' can allegedly 'start a school' for instance (even murdoch & gove); or start a charity, yet donations aren't publicly, and carefully enough examined, which is an important current aspect of discussion about the financial elite and their new methods of 'avoidance' of normal procedures and practises. fact is, 'the atlantic bridge' org should never have been allowed initially, yet it was.

it seems hm r&c are newly flabby; the charities commission toothless; and european money can be squandered by local authorities 'running away with the plot', power having been de centralised under torys. it feels like a free for all - for the elite. no wonder public chaos ie riots are perceived 'normal' in the circumstances, rather than 'a bug', (as 'the atlantic' mentions). tis a plutocracy, and the ideas that typically eminate from it are not 'pluralism', a mixture. instead, we suddenly find ourselves in an age of pure 100% out and out greed by a few. this shift should never have been termed 'globalisation' - 'gobbleisation' is far more accurate, but doesn't sound nearly as unifying, and altruistic of course.

anyway, back ontopic, to our own personal tax problems, and blaming ourselves, the societal 'solution' encouraged most, especially by dave and co, dodgey educational psychiatrists, and gps with no conscience but a ton of prozac to shift.

If you remember, Dame Suzi Leather of the Charity Commission was given a right royal going over a couple of years ago when she was trying to steer the Commission in more of a regulatory role, coming down hard on the public benefit aspect of public schools' charitable status, etc. Hints of things to come ...

Keep an eye on Sir Stephen Bubb, CEO of ACEVO (Association of Chief Execs of Voluntary Organisations). He's a former Labour councillor in Lambeth but swings with the prevailing wind, got Osborne to give him a bank-style operation fundeed out of dormant bank accounts as part of The Big Society. He was Chair of one of Lansley's NHS working parties when Lansley was forced to slow down & consult. He's been at the forefront of blurring the distinction between the Third Sector (large 'brand' charities with many full-time employees, pensions, etc) and the voluntary sector (smaller, more critical-of-government local charities arising out of perceived need, sometimes seen as the awkward squad). Bubb does not represent them - his drive is for 'the professionalisation' of the Third Sector

In some ways this is a classic time for the voluntary sector - huge growth in inequality locally & nationally, poverty, forgotten/marginalised people such as unemployed people, homeless people, refugees & asylum seekers, drug addicts, people with mental health issues, other disabled people, Black and other minorirty ethnic communities, working class perople, poor lesbians and gay men, transgender people. Fortunately there is a goodly number of Trusts and Foundations wjho will fund these sorts of groups, plus the National Lottery, but the Bubbster will have his claws in there.

He's frequently all over Today & Newsnight - well connected

Tough times

[Serial_Apologist]

i'm not sure anyone but the rich will want to live in some parts of london much longer, as it changes between now and the 2020s.

Before that happens I foresee parts of London becoming armed enclaves of the rich: Prommers turning up to find themselves personnae non-grata, or being told in advances that to enter the district including the Albert Hall and Cadogan Hall they will need special advance vetting: were you born in this country? how long have you lived here? how come you don't own a bank account? - before obtaining the necessary encoded access remote controller, then immediately on entry being frisked by neighbourhood watch armed guards with snarling rottweilers. I believe it's already happened in Latin American cities. The ghettoes are still free entry, mind - you hand over your wallet and any spare julerie to the man with the pop gun.

[Serial_Apologist]

'gobbleisation' is far more accurate

Get it patented, handsome - the copyrights will still be worth a few bob! Cameron's out there with his JCB of a retinue, ready for when the embargoes are released for his friends to make a killing out of a low-waged economy's desperation for "democracy". We're all for "democracy", aren't we.

[ahinton]

Before that happens I foresee parts of London becoming armed enclaves of the rich: Prommers turning up to find themselves personnae non-grata, or being told in advances that to enter the district including the Albert Hall and Cadogan Hall they will need special advance vetting: were you born in this country? how long have you lived here? how come you don't own a bank account? - before obtaining the necessary encoded access remote controller, then immediately on entry being frisked by neighbourhood watch armed guards with snarling rottweilers. I believe it's already happened in Latin American cities. The ghettoes are still free entry, mind - you hand over your wallet and any spare julerie to the man with the pop gun.

I rather doubt that this will happen, actually but, if indeed it ever threatens to do so, there will almost certainly be mass emigration of those who "have done nothing wrong so have nothing to fear", as the old cliché still has it...

[handsomefortune]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/12/atos-doctors-sign-official-secrets-act

upward of one hundred million pounds per anum (excluding appeals) of tax payers contributions, syphoned off by a fake medical org, dubbed a 'disability denial factory'. it means the coalition can AVOID paying out a fortune.

as with a4e, finally the truth is leaking out, but must have taken some supressing presumably. (i sincerely hope the figure of 32 per wk, in the comments section is guesswork, and not fact).

[Serial_Apologist]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...al-secrets-act

upward of one hundred million pounds per anum (excluding appeals) of tax payers contributions, syphoned off by a fake medical org, dubbed a 'disability denial factory'. it means the coalition can AVOID paying out a fortune.

as with a4e, finally the truth is leaking out, but must have taken some supressing presumably. (i sincerely hope the figure of 32 per wk, in the comments section is guesswork, and not fact).

Not being permitted to speak out to the media etc on internal disputes, trade union negotiations etc, was something which was made very clear to me, when I was employed in an industry covered by the Official Secrets Act. On being made redundant I was further told that I was still under OSA jurisdiction regarding anything to do with these matters during the time of my employ. It becomes permanent keep mouth shut time to anyone with memoirs in mind.