You are viewing Tax system

Self-employed workers pay from a similar threshold a sum of £ 158 per year plus 9% of their income from profits.

When I was self-employed and reached retirement age at 65, I couldn’t believe my payments were stopping. Retirees therefore pay nothing.

---

READ MORE: LETTER: “Is the NI hike right?” No’
WANT TO WRITE? Click here to submit your letter

---

The purpose of national insurance is to pay the NHS, state benefits and pensions, but the retirement age dates back to the 1960s. At the time, most retirees did not have a pension. solid private pensions, gym memberships, motorhomes to tour Europe or did not have several houses to rent to young people in difficulty.

The three main political parties have been in power during this century and have continued to pay a very unfair share of insurance to young people who are most likely to have a job, facing high costs for housing and family education.

Young people need to take charge; they need to tell PAOs that they are using the National Health Service, that they are getting their vaccines first, and that they will likely need social care soon.

Covid 19 has now opened the door to retirees paying a larger share of their income above a similar income threshold, than the 1.5% health tax proposed for next year: on income at a time work and private pensions.

ROGER HOUSE
Taunton

TEMPO.CO, Jakarta – Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati and the House of Representatives’ Finance Committee (DPR) ratified the Tax Harmonization Bill at the first level meeting on Wednesday, September 29. general provisions on taxation (RUU KUP).

“The government believes this bill will help create a fairer and more legal tax system,” Sri Sri said in an official statement on Thursday (September 30th).

According to Sri, several regulations have been agreed in this bill, ranging from the imposition of taxes on crops, provisions on the follow-up of mutual agreement procedure (MAP) decisions, to provisions for administrative sanctions in the process of settlement. objection and appeal. .

The previous bill had been included in the National Priority Legislation Program 2021 (Prolegnas). However, it had not been approved at the plenary meeting held by the DPR today.

The second level meeting or plenary meeting is scheduled in the coming days on the agenda for the ratification of the bill. “It will be next week,” she added.

Sri further reiterated that the bill should strengthen government-led tax administration reform, including the use of Identification Numbers (NIK) as Tax Identification Numbers (NPWP) for individual taxpayers. .

The bill was also supposed to support Indonesia’s position in international cooperation and produce provisions on the final rate of value added tax, as well as optimize the country’s income through base broadening. tax, Sri Mulyani said.

Read: Sri Mulyani talks about alternative minimum tax plan

FAJAR PEBRIANTO

Lord Campbell-Savors has previously called the house tax system unfair, saying: “It is unfair, it penalizes part of the North and favors London, and it is now in urgent need of reform.”

Speaking during the Lords’ council tax debate, he said: “How can a C-Band house in Cumbria, with municipal taxes of over £ 1,600 a year, pay more than a £ 54million H-Band luxury home in Mayfair in London? Surely such discrepancies in the treatment of homes in the north only serve to further reveal how far the whole house tax system has become completely absurd. Isn’t the concept of a red wall defending the north more than a myth, confirmed by the government’s refusal to reform housing tax and its enormous inconsistencies? ”

Lord Clark of Windermere also spoke on the matter.

He said: “My lords, all over Cumbria, whether in Barrow, Carlisle, Kendal or in the many households in the middle villages, households feel aggrieved to be forced, because of the national framework, to pay more. housing tax than luxury homes in London.

“Even the government has to accept that this is grossly unfair.

“When do they plan to take a small step to alleviate the problem and help level up in Britain?”

The government whip, Viscount Younger de Leckie, replied: “Housing tax is well understood by taxpayers.

“The government has no plans to reform the housing tax, which would be complex and time-consuming to undertake and would create confusion for taxpayers.”

Former Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp, ​​one of the party’s key tax policy voices, has proposed that President Joe Biden tax assets valued at the time of his death on farms and family businesses. Said to damage the.

“I’m trying to sound an economic and political warning to Democrats that this is not the way to go,” she said in an interview with Squawk Box. “The turmoil this brings to small families and the wealth of farmers and families is not worth it. “

Biden proposed to tax assets valued at the time of death for income over $ 1 million. He also proposed raising the capital gains tax to the standard income tax rate. The plan will be discussed within the framework of a parliamentary regulation bill. In his proposal, individuals who inherit millions of private companies of value and real estate could face an immediate capital gains tax of more than 40% without having to sell them.

Now, in what is known as the “base increase”, an individual can inherit a valued asset without paying taxes, and the value is “upgraded” at the current valuation, to the benefit of individuals. interests of the tax deceased. Wipe off. For Biden and many progressive Democrats, the escalation is a huge loophole for the wealthy, with millionaires and millionaires giving their businesses and assets to their families for generations without paying capital gains taxes. They say it will be possible to pass.

Heitkamp, ​​who served in the Senate until 2019, chairs a new nonprofit called Save America’s Family Enterprises (SAFE). The nonprofit is campaigning against the proposal and running family ads. Neither the high camp nor the group revealed the donor.

“Unearned income should not be taxed at a much lower tax rate than income,” said Heitkamp, ​​supporting raising the capital gains tax to a tax rate normal. She also basically prefers to eliminate step-ups. Therefore, the asset does not reach the new valuation when inherited, but retains its original basis when sold.

She said her opposition to Biden’s plan was immediate imposition after death. She explained that families should only pay capital gains taxes when their assets are sold and the profits are made.

“What I find most annoying is that, for the first time, I am suddenly taxing unrealized capital gains,” she said. “My position has always been that you have to make capital gains. “

She gave the example of a truck driver named Sam, whose family has owned a cabin on a lake in Minnesota for generations and whose value has skyrocketed over time due to gentrification. The wealthy buyer next door buys land for $ 2 million and builds a mansion for $ 2 million. If both died, the wealthy landowner would give his property over to his family and could not pay taxes as they had a high current base. But Sam’s family could pay millions in taxes upon his death, even if the family didn’t sell the property.

She said the same applies to family businesses and farms.

“Family assets are more than a balance sheet,” she said. “Family assets are where we work, where we live and where we recreate ourselves. Given the taxation of unrealized capital gains, what you are doing is Pandora’s long-standing unclosed To open the box. “

The White House has said family farms and family businesses are exempt from taxes until the property is sold. Families also have up to 15 years to pay taxes to ease the pressure on them to sell immediately. According to a White House analysis, couples can be exempted up to $ 2.5 million if real estate is included, so only the richest 0.3% of taxpayers have to pay taxes.

Howard Grecman, a senior fellow of the Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute, said Biden’s plan to tax assessed assets on death is important to the overall plan to raise capital gains to income rates normal. I said it was a game. Instead of taxing assets assessed at the time of death, he said, wealthy families only hold assets indefinitely to avoid higher taxes on capital gains.

“Biden’s proposal to raise the capital gains tax rate to the normal tax rate would have an unpleasant economic effect, with little income and somehow unrealized at the time of death,” he said. declared. “If you take it up a notch, you won’t be taxed until your heir sells it. It’s decades after the death of the original investor. Lockdown has been around for generations. Investment can get stuck in underperforming assets. ”

Vijayawada: The High Court on Tuesday issued notices to the government in the filed petition challenging the state’s new property tax system. The taxpayers’ association has asked the High Court to challenge the new property tax regime in which tax is levied on the capital value of the property instead of annual rental income. The government recently released GO 198 to introduce the new property tax and vacant land tax regime in urban local communities.
Lawyer Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, arguing on behalf of the petitioners, told the judiciary headed by Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Judge Ninala Jayasurya that the amended Municipalities Act of Andhra Pradesh violated constitutional principles and democratic. He also supported the process of rolling out the new tax system without giving people the opportunity to submit their grievances.
While objections were called amid the Covid-19 pandemic, many people were reluctant to travel to municipalities to submit their grievances, he said, adding that although representations were made to provide of alternative platforms such as the online submission of objections, officials did not consider the requests.
Government litigator for municipal administration, G Shivaji, argued that the state government brought the amendment in line with the recommendations of the Union government, which proposed to have a uniform tax policy. across the country and has published guidelines on this. The state government only followed the recommendations, he said. Given all of the arguments, the High Court asked the state government to file cross-affidavits in the petition and released the case for a new hearing after eight weeks.
Lawyer Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, arguing on behalf of the petitioners, supported the process of rolling out the new tax regime without giving people the opportunity to submit their grievances.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
E-mail
To print

Who’s cheating on Uncle Sam the most these days? Earlier this year, two IRS researchers joined economists from Carnegie Mellon, the London School of Economics and the University of California at Berkeley to explore this question.

According to these analysts, Americans at the top and bottom of the income scale do not report all of their income. But the level of non-reporting varies enormously. Among Americans belonging to the poorest 50% in the country, only 7% of income goes unreported. In the top 1%, it’s almost 20%.

What is happening here? Or is it just deeply but unintentionally flawed?

This is a complicated question. But as a tax lawyer, I firmly believe that the flaws are intentional. Let’s take a look at the evidence.

Most of us don’t have the ability to exclude income from our tax returns. Our employers report all of our wages and salaries on W-2 forms. Our financial institutions declare interest on our savings and dividends on our 1099 shares.

But the type of income that many comes up with at the top of our income scale – business income from partnerships and other special categories of business enterprises – usually doesn’t appear on any form that needs to be filed with the IRS. .

In other words, we have a tax system with a built-in loophole in reporting information. This certainly counts as a major flaw.

An intentional fault? Maybe, but it’s debatable. So let’s take a look at the recent dramatic drop in IRS audit rates on the nation’s wealthiest.

Audits on revenues over $ 1 million have fallen by 71% since 2010, says the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This drop reflects fairly substantial cuts to the IRS budget – a 19% hit since 2010 – and what could be more intentional than budget cuts?

Some might argue that the drop in auditing on high-income earners may simply reflect the inevitable complexity of their returns, which can include all kinds of business entities and trusts.

But if you keep digging, there is still compelling evidence that our tax system is rigged: Tax Code Section 6707A. Nothing in our tax code is more like rig by design.

Section 6707A of the tax code imposes a penalty for failing to disclose a “listed transaction,” essentially any transaction that the IRS identifies as an abusive measure to avoid taxes.

The sanction for violation of article 6707A? An amount equal to 75% of the tax that a taxpayer sought to avoid through the transaction, even if the transaction itself is considered legitimate. Failure to disclose also gives the IRS unlimited time to verify reports of listed transactions, not just the regular three years.

Sounds like a squeeze for shady declarers, doesn’t it? Those who engage in listed transactions may disclose their abusive transactions in their tax return, a decision that will almost certainly trigger an audit. Or they can omit disclosure and risk a huge penalty.

But there is a catch. Section 6707A carries a maximum penalty. No person who fails to disclose a listed transaction can be fined more than $ 100,000.

Think about it for a moment. For a person who engages in a listed transaction to avoid multi-million dollar income tax, the penalty limit in Section 6707A essentially imposes no deterrent to tax evasion.

If you’re trying to avoid $ 50,000 in tax, the threat of a penalty of $ 37,500 on top of the tax owed will be intimidating. But if you’re trying to avoid $ 3,000,000 in taxes, that threat of a $ 100,000 penalty is insignificant. Without the possibility of a severe penalty, even the indefinite audit risk becomes much less threatening.

The bottom line: Section 6707A undoubtedly rigs our tax system in favor of the ultra-rich. What good policy could be served by intentionally limiting the exposure to penalties of very wealthy taxpayers and no one else? I can’t think of one.

Could the intentional rigging of the tax code in favor of the rich be limited to this one obscure sanction provision? Do you want to buy a bridge?

Bob Lord is a tax lawyer and associate researcher at the Institute for Policy Studies.

• Said NGF awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court

GOVERNOR Kayode Fayemi of Ekiti State said yesterday that the Nigerian Governors Forum, NGF, is awaiting the Supreme Court ruling on value added tax, VAT and collection.

Fayemi, who is also the chairman of the NGF, said Nigeria’s tax system was not only problematic, but also confusing and needed special attention.

Speaking in an interview with Arise Television yesterday, Fayemi said governors are awaiting the outcome of the case instituted by some state governors.

He said the Governors’ Forum is currently reviewing the issues and consulting on the implications of the fundraising for state governments.

The governor said: “For us at NGF this is an issue that we are looking at both legally and politically. We ask our experts to help us consider the implications for states.

“Our point of view is that the Supreme Court should expedite the decision on this matter, so that we are clear on who should be in charge of VAT – whether it is FIRS or the States. We will wait for the Supreme Court to rule on this.

“The important thing is that our tax system is problematic, confusing and contradictory, and we need to do a lot more to start clarifying things, so that we can have more efficient ways of collecting taxes.”

Regarding President Muhammadu Buhari’s calls for debt cancellation at the United Nations General Assembly, Fayemi said the federal government borrowing was for reasons and was for specific loans.

He said: “Nigeria borrows for specific reasons. Most of what we borrow is specific. If you look at what we borrow, you will see that these are specific and very attractive loans.

Noting that the borrowing was in line with World Bank and IMF standards, the NGF chairman said, “On the other hand, you have the Chinese infrastructure loans.

We can now ask ourselves if we should be using 97% of the debt service. It is a debate that we can have.

“The problem is, why are you borrowing. Do you borrow for consumption or for infrastructure development? Buhari is to be commended for this.

“The question is, we have income problems… borrowing is a win-win situation for our country and our economy.”

Recall that the Southern Governors Forum had supported the collection of VAT by the states, and not by the Federal Inland Revenue Service, FIRS.

Recall also that the states of Rivers and Lagos had promulgated laws for the collection of VAT, as the Court of Appeal had ordered that the states maintain the status quo, pending the decision of an appeal filed by the FIRS.

The Rivers State government also asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal’s order to allow states to continue to collect the tax, known as consumption tax.

Breaking News Nigeria

Democrats in Congress craft details of investments in American families and businesses that will make America more competitive, grow the economy, raise American families and communities left behind for too long, and tackle the crisis of climate change.

One of the key questions at the heart of negotiations is how to pay them. The president presented a sensible tax reform proposal that not only pays for these investments, but also corrects the excesses of Trump’s tax cuts and brings our tax code in line with American values ​​- a tax system that rewards hard work, not just wealth and ensures that those at the top and the companies pay their fair share.

With these reforms on the table, corporate lobbyists have started to proliferate. They fill the airwaves – and the ears of my former colleagues – with lies.

I urge my colleagues to see lobbying for what it is and apply a few simple tests:

First, do you want a tax system where the super rich don’t pay their fair share and never have to pay tax on their immense wealth?

Second, do you want a tax system that allows companies to hide their profits offshore and pay lower effective rates than middle-class Americans?

Third, do you want a tax system that allows the rich and businesses to avoid paying the taxes they owe?

The answer to each of these questions should be simple: no.

President BidenJoe Biden Biden Announces Arts and Humanities Endowment Appointments Biden and Xi Agree to Honor Taiwan On The Money Agreement – Presented by NRHC – Democrats Break Rubicon Debt Ceiling PLUS proposed common sense measures that fit the brand and fund these key investments in America’s future – and without raising taxes by a single dime on anyone who earns less than $ 400,000 a year and Americans were agree with him.

It is time to close the tax loopholes that allow the richest Americans to avoid taxes. It finally means ending the deferred interest loophole. It means closing the loophole that allows some of this country’s greatest fortunes to escape taxes entirely, and it can be done while fully protecting the wealth accumulated in small businesses.

This is where you can see Washington’s cynicism making its way. There are those who say you can’t tax the wealthiest Americans without hurting family farms. It’s just insane. We can get millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share and fully protect real family farms. The richest Americans must not be allowed to hide behind family farms that are fully protected by these reforms.

When it comes to corporate tax, we can raise the rate – and we still have the lowest corporate tax rate this country has seen since WWII and until President TrumpDonald Trump Biden Announces On The Money Arts & Humanities Endowment Nominations – Presented By NRHC – Democrats Break Debt Ceiling Rubicon Trump Backs Diehl For Massachusetts Governor, Slams ‘RINO’ Baker MOREgiant corporate gift. And we can reform the tax code so that it no longer encourages our biggest companies to shift their profits and jobs overseas. Once again, lobbyists will complain. After all, it will require their corporate clients to contribute more.

But let’s be clear: these reforms and investments will make the United States more competitive, not less. He will address the climate change crisis where so many business leaders have spoken.

Opposition from lobbyists only puts short-term corporate profit ahead of the long-term economic health of this country.

Finally, when it comes to law enforcement, President Biden strives to secure the resources and information he needs from the IRS to ensure fair application of the law. Typical workers pay what they owe under the law. There is a 99% compliance rate on salaries. Ninety-nine percent. The same is not true for the super rich and the biggest corporations. It is much easier for the wealthy to hide their income, and at this time the IRS cannot keep up. The president is fighting to give the IRS the resources to take on the armies of lawyers and accountants who are helping businesses and the wealthy avoid paying the taxes they owe. My former colleagues should ignore the lobbyists who will try to argue that simply getting the rich to pay the taxes they owe will hurt typical Americans who already follow the law.

In order to truly build back better, we need a tax system where businesses and the rich pay their fair share. It’s that simple.

Harry reidHarry Mason Reid Biden’s agenda looms large in Virginia governor’s race is the former majority leader in the Senate.