Founded in 2008. The Landscape Juice Network (LJN) is the largest and fastest growing professional landscaping and horticultural association in the United Kingdom.
LJN's professional business forum is unrivalled and open to anyone within within the UK landscape industry
LJN's Business Objectives Group (BOG) is for any Pro serious about building their business.
For the researching visitor there's a wealth of landscaping ideas, garden design ideas, lawn advice tips and advice about garden maintenance.
Replies
It seems to me that having a man with this set up, in charge of tax raising, is like having a benefit cheat in charge of benefit payments.
If those who benefit from substantial incomes think it reasonable that low earners pay about a third of their income in taxes (direct and indirect), then they should in the interests of being all in it together pay the same percentage of their icome in taxes.
As Phil said the lower your income the higher percentage is paid in tax. This especially applies if you are on the PAYE system and are taxed at source. Higher earners can also afford to hire a tax specialist to minimise the amount they pay.
What makes my teeth itch are some of the gentry who put their estates in charitable trust, pay a peppercorn rent to live there and still maintain their lifestyle and income tax is avoided by using the charitable status.
SCENARIOS
You work hard, you set-up a company which becomes successful turning over £20M+ per annum you employ 28 people all on PAYE.
Would you
A. Pay the maximum amount of corporation tax required by the state/governments
B. Seek to minimise how much corporation tax was paid
Now assume that by relocating the company to a different country with a lower corporation tax rate you can save up to 50% on your tax bill.
A. Would you stay
B. Would you go
Now a couple of questions
Do you think that the state/governments spends your tax money
A. Well
B. Badly
Do you think that the state/governments really understands the day-to-day workings of all the projects that it gets involved in
A. Yes
B. No
If you answered A. to the above then you think that the state/governments understands what it is doing and that a high tax system is the way forward.
If you answered B. to the above then you probably think that the state/governments throughout the world are responsible for causing bubbles due to their tampering with markets and their inability to fully understand each and every market and to let the markets decide what should and when things should happen.
Whatever we might think personally of Philip Green, his audit of government spending (and I'd suggest he didn't do all this work personally but took the credit) exposed just how out of their depth government ministers are when it comes to financial matters.
In my view, the government needs to have a chief executive style approach to its business with an independent full time department challenging expenditure.
Richard Boyd said:
As for government ministers, I'd like to see the state do very little (I'm firmly in the above B vote camp). The UK does not need the stupidly large number of politicians that we do have 1250+ (upper and lower) and further more these people need to be
- trained
- to gain experience in the areas they represent
- floor walk - they should all be forced to know and understand the consequences of their actions
- be made accountable for their decisions - otherwise they are at liberty to just walk away from their mistakes
---these are just the basics, our system needs a complete overhaul.
Philip Voice said:
As for government waste, one week they are scrapping an aircraft carrier because we can't afford it the following week we are giving everyone the day off for the wedding of a minor celebrity.
By all means tackle government waste and mismanagement it is long overdue as it was the last time we had a Conservative government. As importantly let us have the money these free loaders are taking out of our pockets to subsidise their life styles and aquisitions.
If anyone interested in seeing how each government performed over a range of financial measurements, recommend you read this from the IFS: http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn91.pdf
What's needed are incentives for business minded people to stay here and keep our economy going. I don't agree that Policiticans should do the same and take so much money for so little in return, but without the Green's, Branson's etc our state woud be worse off
What happened in the late 60's and 70's when effective tax on income was a 98% marginal tax rate - a brain drain out of the UK and/or 'inventive tax avoidance schemes' See below:
""In 1974 the top-rate of income tax increased to its highest rate since the war, 83%. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£155,247 as of 2010),[2], and combined with a 15% surcharge on 'un-earned' income (investments and dividends) could add to a 98% marginal rate of personal income tax. In 1974, as many as 750,000 people were liable to pay the top-rate of income tax. [4] Margaret Thatcher, who favoured indirect taxation, reduced personal income tax rates during the 1980s. [5] In the first budget after her election victory in 1979, the top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%. [6] The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets - to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988. [7] The top rate of income tax was cut to 40% in the 1988 budget""
I think it will be hard for any Government (no matter what the colour of their politics are...) to resolve this quickly & fairly.
Whilst I do not agree with the Dennis Healey tax them till their pips squeak philiosophy, the tax burden has to be equitable. Societies where incomes are more equitable tend to have fewer social problems, lower rates of crime and by extension are probably cheaper to govern.
Taxation should be based on the ability to pay not on consumption, (unless there is a reason for it, public health for example).
Gary RK said:
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next