More Strikes

[LEO]

The o.p was a comment ,about current  strikes in France !

[NickP]

Gluestick wrote: Strange offices you must have worked in...........

I never worked in an office, my working life has always been and  is as a blue collar worker. But considering I mentioned shops, my logic tells me that a shop, ( a commercial property ? ) produces huge amounts of waste.

 

Errr,.....no. It was the claimed "Fairness" of Poll Tax against Council Tax.

"In any case, rightly or wrongly, taxes, in their modern incarnation are set on the basis that the greater one earns, then the more one pays:"

Sorry I must have misunderstood the above,  "wot you wrote" (courtesy  Ernie Wise) [:D]  And I must add, I thought that commercial rates were determined by square footage of the property. So I obviously got that wrong. Cheers Gluestick once again you are a little fountain of knowledge [B]

 

 

 

[Jay]

[quote user="Suninfrance"]From the Connexion online two more strikes are set for 28th October  (national industry-wide strike) and 6th November (day of demonstrations around France).

[/quote]

Thanks for the info. Does anyone living here in France give a **** about Poll Tax?

[powerdesal]

[quote user="NickP"]

Gluestick wrote:

Obviously, you haven't examined the punitive cost of UBR (Business Rates): one anomaly (Amongst many!) being that despite paying vastly more than a householder, commercial premises have to pay again for such as waste removal.

I don't think most ordinary householders think too much about business rates, but you must remember that we pay toward them when we purchase something from the shop. As for paying extra for waste removal, why not? commercial premises produce huge amounts of waste in comparison to an ordinary household.

In any case, rightly or wrongly, taxes, in their modern incarnation are set on the basis that the greater one earns, then the more one pays: paying just the cost of services one consumes fails to enter the dynamic.

The subject under discussion was council tax or rates not tax on earnings, but as you brought it up; the ones who earn most usually employ  accountants to enable them to avoid taxes [Www] remember Mr Spam

Unless, of course, one is happily amongst the increasing number of Ex Pat tax avoiders...................

Like any other person who pays their way correctly I don't like tax avoiders, but you don't have to be an ex pat to avoid taxes, surely it's not beyond the governments capabilities to stop it, or maybe that would be shooting  their own pals in the foot.[:D]

[/quote] I think you really mean "tax evaders" NOT "tax avoiders", the first is illegal, the second is prudent, legal, makes sense and is the action justifiably taken by anyone with a tax liability.

[NickP]

No I meant tax avoiders, people with large salary's who can afford to employ tax deducable accountants to avoid tax, yes I know it's legal, but it's unfair that a system allows high earners to pay percentage wise a smaller liability than a minimum wage worker. That's why I dislike tax avoiders, Tax evaders I would have ??? better not say. [:D]

[Stan Streason]

I have participated in tax avoidance for years.  I am the only income tax payer in our household.  Our savings are wholly in my wifes name so she uses her otherwise unused personal allowance against that income.  If it were in my name I would pay tax, in hers we dont. I have set up my affairs to legally avoid paying tax under the law.  I would be stupid to do otherwise.

Everyone who buys something before the new year to avoid the increase in VAT is a tax avoider.  As is everyone with a tax free ISA. Its either legal or its not - you cant draw false lines.

[powerdesal]

Not everyone on a "large salary" employs or needs to employ an accountant, (define large salary please). I seriously doubt if such accountant fees are tax deductable anyway, someone with more knowledge than I could answer that.

Most people are capable of doing the necessary research to find how to minimise their tax liability, unless of course they have complex personal circumstances which require specialist knowledge.

[Gluestick]

There must be pretty exceptional circumstances for any salary earner taxed under Schedule E, to offset accountancy or indeed any professional fees against gross income before tax.

Whilst the media make much capital from scare stories and rants about "Tax Avoiders" and the like, for some little time HMRC have demanded (And held their case in litigation) that Tax Avoidance Schemes be registered, before they are approved.

Which simply means any taxpayer citing and registering a clever tax saving wheeze is inviting amendment to the Finance Act, a Statutory Instrument, amendments to the ICTA, Capital Taxes Act, Capital Allowances Act and etc.

[tonyv]

In my previous life, when I was self-employed, I employed a tax accountant to sort out my rather complex tax affairs. I reckon that, apart from the time and drudgery saved in filling out tax returns, the amount of tax he saved me in claiming legitimate allowances which I would not have known about more than offset his fee. He was also pretty good at sorting out errors made by HMRC (many, I'm afraid).

In what way is that unfair, Mr NickP?

Yes, Powerdesal, the accountant's fees, like other business expenses, are offset against profits, so, in effect tax deductible.

[powerdesal]

Agreed Tonyv, for self employed or business, but not for High Salary earning individuals who are employees.

[NickP]

[quote user="powerdesal"]Agreed Tonyv, for self employed or business, but not for High Salary earning individuals who are employees.[/quote]

I agree with all of you, legitimate small business's; self employed etc. are fine and the the guy who offsets his savings against his wifes allowances  why not? after all it's her money as much as yours. My dislike for tax avoidance is directed toward corporate bigwigs who abuse the system. You cannot convince me that the heads or upper managements of many huge corporations are on PAYE, and that is where the rub is, one set of rules for the "small man" and one set of rules for them. Any way for Leo's information and to bring this back on thread, sorry mate; I reckon the strike will last forever, so lots of us will not be visiting France for sometime. Mainly as it's along walk to  the Loir et Cher [:(]

[Gluestick]

[quote user="NickP"] You cannot convince me that the heads or upper managements of many huge corporations are on PAYE, and that is where the rub is, one set of rules for the "small man" and one set of rules for them.  [:(][/quote]

A limited company and/or a public limited company is, by law (Both that governing employment and taxation) constrained to "Employ" those who act as Directors and etc. Senior managers are automatically employees.

Proving to cynical inspectors that one is genuinely self-employed is harder today than ever before.

Tests Of Self-Employment:

See here:

If HMRC dispute what one claims, in connection with what they determine "Shadow Employment" then they will simply invoke such as IR35.

See here: