So, my plan works then

Incomes increased over the past financial year as wages rose more quickly than pay, aided by the rising income tax threshold.

The average household’s disposable income – after tax, benefits and inflation – rose by 1.8pc to £27,200 for the financial year 2016-17, the Office for National Statistics said.

Given that it really was me (although, agreed, not me alone) with that raise the damn tax allowance argument I guess my plot to make the Brits better off worked then, eh?

Whut?

Some executives working for these extremely profitable tech companies are feted for their acts of philanthropic generosity. But why don’t they do more to stop crime on their platforms, as well as paying their fair share of taxes, which would allow the government to hire more police officers?

How venal do these rapacious companies have to be before we act?

Mike Barton is chief constable of Durham Constabulary

A Chief Constable is complaining that people obey the tax laws?

Sigh

The argument against the idea is contained within the very piece recommending it.

In the UK, official statistics suggest around £77bn is passed on in inheritance each year (tax avoidance means the real amount could be even higher). That’s money that no living being has a moral claim to, according to standard justifications of wealth inequality and private property. Were that money redistributed by the state, it would cover the cost of adult social care several times over. It could plug gaps in NHS, education and police funding. It could provide the kind of comprehensive welfare state that meant nobody had to worry about their family after they passed away – because there would always be a safety net.

OK, 100% inheritance tax. Why not?

The idea that we should be able to pass on our life’s accumulated wealth to descendants is deeply embedded. It appeals to the fundamental biological urge to protect your offspring and propagate your genes.

Because human beings don’t work that way.

Which is a pretty shit hot reason why not. To the extent that we’re doing any designing at all we’re trying to aid humans in being human, not anything else.

Country by country reporting won’t change this in the slightest

A French court handed Google’s parent company, Alphabet, a reprieve from a 1.11bn-euro ($1.27bn) tax bill on Wednesday in a major victory for the tech giant.

The decision comes after six years of fighting with the French tax authority over back taxes it claims are due from the tech firm for the years 2005 to 2010.

The French tax administration argued that Google had to pay taxes in France because the California firm and its subsidiary in Ireland have been selling a service for inserting online ads to clients in France for years through its Google search engine.

But the Paris administrative court noted that the subsidiary, Google Ireland Limited, doesn’t have a “permanent establishment” in France via the company Google France, also a subsidiary of the US group Google Inc.

I’ve already done the “I told you so” piece. And do note that country by country reporting doesn’t change this in the slightest. Under the standard international tax treaties sales from outside the country pay tax where the sales are booked, not where the customers are. It is only when there is a permanent establishment in the country that everything comes under that taxing jurisdiction.

There is no dodging here, this is not an abuse of the rules, it’s following them as they are written. As HMRC has been known to point out, this is just how the system works.

Umm, how does this work?

Uber was last night accused of exploiting a loophole to avoid paying millions in tax that helps it undercut rivals.
It was claimed that HMRC has missed out on about £40million in VAT from the controversial taxi app thanks to the legal but highly controversial tactic.
Ride-hailing apps are meant to pay 20 per cent VAT on booking fees they collect from drivers on each fare. But Uber avoids this by treating its 40,000 UK drivers as separate businesses, as most earn less than the £85,000 a year threshold for VAT registration.
This enables the American firm to offer cheaper fares than both traditional taxi firms and rival app-based services, while depriving the Treasury of millions of pounds in tax.

Forgive me because I don’t understand this claim. The booking service is offered by Uber. Why would it make a difference if each of the drivers was VAT registered or not? It’s still Uber offering the booking service, no?

Uber collects an estimated £200million a year in fares, meaning HMRC could be losing out on at least £40million a year in VAT, according to calculations by Reuters.

Ah, so the claim is that the total fee should be Vatable. Which it isn’t, is it? This is Tom Bergin again. Which does actually explain:

Uber avoids having to charge British value added tax on its booking fees by treating each driver as an individual business and then billing drivers across EU borders from its Dutch subsidiary, using an EU VAT provision called the “reverse charge”.

The rule lets businesses sell goods or services to other businesses across EU borders without paying VAT. There is usually no loss of tax revenue, because the importing business collects VAT from its own customers.

But since Uber drivers mostly generate less than the 85,000 pounds a year sales threshold to register for VAT in Britain, they don’t have to collect it.

Gett and mytaxi both bill their drivers from companies within Britain. As the reverse charge does not apply to domestic sales, that means that unlike Uber they must charge drivers VAT.

It is upon just the Uber fee, not the total amount. OK, great.

So Tom, who is it who is not paying this VAT? It’s not Uber, is it? It the driers who aren’t paying it.

But then Bergin likes Dame Margaret, Lady Hodge, and has even been known to speak of Lord Snippa Spud approvingly. So tax incidence isn’t going to be one of those things he gets right, is it?

Is Phillip Inman really this stupid?

But, more importantly, working for a PAYE employer will be considered a mug’s game compared with running a small company and paying 19% corporation tax. Even under Labour, someone earning £80,000 could swap a 45% tax rate for a 26% corporation tax rate.

There is tax to be paid again when the money is taken out of the company you fool.

The Tories meanwhile will make the situation worse by increasing the personal threshold further, taking even more people out of the tax system. Such a move will disempower future governments from helping the lower-paid through the tax system.

Yes, yes, he is this stupid. If we stop taxing poor people now then we can’t stop taxing them in the future.

The Australian tax dodge case

All most fun. And proof that criminals are idiots of course. The only surprising thing here is that Daddy was a senior tax officer.

Basics – set up as a payroll processing company. Gain contracts to do the work.

Then don’t pay the correct PAYE.

I mean, yes, there’s more, but that’s the basics.

At which point criminals are idiots. The taxman is going to come looking for this money at some point. So you don’t spend it on cars and properties and watches and so on. Most certainly not in the tax jurisdiction you’re ripping off you don’t.

Sigh.

Suitcases of cash in some jurisdiction with no extradition treaty is the way to go.

Oh, and skipping just as the first letters start arriving asking where the PAYE is.

I really don’t think so you know?

The Mail has been consulting Snippa again no doubt:

Last year, the tech giant was named as the biggest corporate tax avoider in the United States after booking $218.55 billion (£171.6 billion) of profit offshore last year.

The tech giant was able to save $65.08 billion (£51.1 billion) that it should have paid in tax thanks to its convoluted arrangements.

Annual profits were of the order of $40 to $50 billion. I really do seriously doubt that they dodged $65 billion in tax on that even at US rates.

The twats are attributing the accumulated amount over the decades to just last year.

Oooooh, super

The proposal also gets rid of almost all tax deductions, including those for state and local taxes. This creates a significant increase in tax for residents of high-tax states such as California and New York.

It’s been a huge distortion and removing it will cause no end of pain in those liberal strongholds.

Good. For people should pay the tax for what they voted for, shouldn’t they?

I approve

Tax Day Reading of Our Glorious Tax Code at IRS HQ in DC

This Tax Day, April 18, will see the first-ever public reading of our glorious Tax Code.

This riveting event begins at 7 a.m. in front of IRS headquarters in Washington, DC.

The good people of the Tax Revolution Institute will keep going until it is too dark to carry on, or they lose their voices.

The absurdity of the event is intended to match the 74,000-page absurdity of the tax code.

To witness this madness, go to the IRS building on Tuesday, April 18, located at 1111 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC — or watch live at TaxRevolution.us.

Sigh

Google paid £36.4million in UK corporation tax last year – despite making a turnover of £1billion.

Sigh

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Susan Kramer said: ‘It is appalling that Google are still getting away with paying such a paltry amount of their total revenue back in taxes.

It’s a profit tax you ignorant git!

David Cay Johnston is ever so slightly biased here, no?

In 2005, Donald J. Trump married model Melanija Knavs, his third wife. That year, the real-estate mogul and newly minted TV star earned $153 million dollars, about $3 million a week. That’s far more than all but a tiny sliver of the U.S. population.

The newlyweds paid $36.6 million of that year’s take in federal income taxes, a rate of 24%, putting the Trumps in much the same tax league as any other two-earner professional couple making about $400,000 a year.

Or to put it another way, Donald Trump was paid that year like a member of the 0.001%, but he paid taxes like the 99%. And by at least one measure, he paid like the bottom 50%.

Average tax rate for the top 0.1 % in 2005 was 22.48%.

Between 5 and 10% (that couple on $400k, around and about) 12.61%.

It’s entirely possible to argue that US taxes aren’t high enough and all that. But arguing that Trump’s return here is anything out of the ordinary for his income bracket is, umm, well, misleading, nu?

The document offers a rare glimpse at how a super wealthy couple can manipulate and manage our complex tax laws to reduce their obligations far below rates paid by typical salaried professionals or even blue-collar wage earners.

But an average income tax rate of 24% is far above anything paid by typical salaried professionals or blue collar wages.

Tsk. And to get to the comparable number of 24% for that $400 k earning couple Johnston adds in social security….which isn’t income tax, is it?

The Trumps paid $31.3 million in AMT which, together with the regular tax, made their total federal income tax $36.6 million.

Viewed in terms of their positive income of almost $153 million the total Trump tax bill came to 24%. That’s in the range paid by two-income career couples who both work all year to earn about $400,000. The Trumps income was $418,460 per day.

Yep, that’s what he does, adds SS into that second tax bill.

Some people just don’t understand, do they?

Rents were controlled, public transport was cheap and plentiful and work was more secure, with the employer shouldering more of the national insurance costs.

NI is incident where?

Before Mrs Thatcher, many middle-class couples existed on one income, the women not working or only going back when their children were older, while many working-class women put in five half-days a week.

And it’s interesting to see someone supposedly on the left reviving the Kinder, Küche, Kirche idea, isn’t it?

Bwahahahahaha

Multi-millionaires are enjoying a “cosy” relationship with the taxman and receive a level of help and support that is not given to ordinary taxpayers, MPs say in a report.

Twisted, twisted, logic.

The MPs said that “HMRC’s approach to dealing with the very wealthy suggests that they get help with their tax affairs that is not available to other taxpayers”.

Phone calls and discussions with them are not routinely recorded – unlike those between HMRC staff and ordinary taxpayers – leading to the impression of an “overly close and inappropriate service to the wealthy”.

The MPs were concerned that around one-third of these individuals are under investigation at any one time, and is investigating cases with a potential value of £1.9 billion.

Yet since 2012, HMRC issued just 850 penalties totalling £9 million to them, an average penalty of £10,500 each.

The original concern was that these very rich weren’t paying enough, or rather not the right amount. So, specialist unit to deal with the very rich. Now the complaint is that there is a specialist unit dealing with the very rich. Further, the complaint is that most of them are obeying most of the law most of the time, which is why there are few prosecutions.

Thus we must change the system.

Figures showed that the tax take from this group of high net worth individuals fell by a fifth, equivalent to £1billion, over the past five years and while sums paid by ordinary tax players jumped by £23billion.

How have the taxes which weigh upon those groups changed over this time?

Idiot, idiot

The vision of a low-tax Britain that enforces fewer regulations in terms of workers’ rights has been a motivating force for a number of high-profile supporters of Brexit. However, in a letter seen by the Observer, Asscher writes that it is in the interests of both the UK and the remaining 27 EU member states that May’s government is prevented from creating a low-tax “neoliberal” outpost.

In a sign of the complexity of the trade negotiations to come, Asscher writes: “If you and I pay taxes, so should the large enterprises. Let’s fight the race to the bottom for profits taxation together, which threatens to come into existence if it is up to the Conservative UK government.

But a large enterprise is a legal person, not a natural person. And it is only natural persons who can carry the burden of taxation – on the simple grounds that there’s only us around.

The entire idea is thus stupid.