[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]If you were on 150k you would end up paying an extra 14k a year in tax, what is going to happen to people who do earn that sort of money, have a large mortgage and also have negative equity?.
........
It's tough at the top isn't it? Amongst the many problems that this country faces worrying about how already very rich people are going to survive if thety have to pay a few extra K in tax is so far down the list it isn't worth thinking about.
Why should people who have done well for themselves be punished finanancially (even more so than before!!!!) to finance a bunch of scumbag pikeys and asylum seekers???
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]If you were on 150k you would end up paying an extra 14k a year in tax, what is going to happen to people who do earn that sort of money, have a large mortgage and also have negative equity?.
........
It's tough at the top isn't it? Amongst the many problems that this country faces worrying about how already very rich people are going to survive if thety have to pay a few extra K in tax is so far down the list it isn't worth thinking about.
Why should people who have done well for themselves be punished finanancially (even more so than before!!!!) to finance a bunch of scumbag pikeys and asylum seekers???
Yes you are quite right, we should all hold a collection outside the ground on Saturday to raise some cash to offset the extra tax that the first team squad and the Geordie Smiler (allegedly) are going to have to pay.
Strange that people forget that Geoffrey Howe under Maggie Thatchers Conservative Govt immediately hiked up employee National Insurance Contributions. A direct tax on the most least well off employed people at that time.
And the richest people get to employ the best accountants to ensure that they pay as little tax as possible.
Although I am currently in receipt of some state benefits I dont consider myself to be either a scumbag pikey or an asylum seeker and dont really see what any of thats got to do with it.
Bearing in mind the tiered system of income tax I think 50% is an acceptable top level tax and if I were in that position I would pay it.
As an aside I worked out for my father how much in employee National Insurance conts he paid in his lifetime in work (49 years) and compared that to his state pension. His contributions paid for 6 months of his state pension eg from 65 to 65 ys 6 mths. As he lived for another 14 years beyond that where did the money come from. There is of course no State Pension Fund. It comes out of current taxation. Of course during his lifetime there were Health costs too and payments made by his Employer but the dynamics are huge.
In short a significant part of current taxation is paying for our unfunded State Pension system. A system that those paying the taxes now wont benefit from at the same retirement age and same level of benefit.
Chirpy – interesting story about a drinking club. But how does it relate to a developed civilised society’s tax system. Are you saying that Sir Freddy Goodwin should pay no more tax on his £750,000 a year pension than a nurse or teacher on their meagre salary? And if many of the people who don’t want to pay 50% tax on any income above £150,000 per year decide to leave the country will the country really be worse off? Many of the people affected by this tax inherited their wealth and contribute no more to the economic wellbeing of the country than you or I and probably a good deal less. Many other people affected are working for financial institutions and are still being vastly over paid for skills and risk taking behaviour that has actually cost this country billions of pounds that we will be paying for for generations. If anybody from these two groups decided to leave then good riddance, they won’t be missed.
I agree that this tax may result in some talented and entrepreneurial people deciding to leave and that is a shame and they will be missed. But where will they go? Despite the problems over the last 18 months this country is still one of the best for rewarding genuine hard work, talent and entrepreneurial behaviour irrespective of background.
For those of you dont already know pensions are not subject to NI. Given the increased tax allowances for retired persons Sir Freddy's take home 'pay' in retirement will be greater than someone being paid the same in employment.
Glad you posted that Red in SE8. I was thinking there cant be many people who would object to Sir Freddy paying a top rate of 50%.
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]Chirpy – interesting story about a drinking club. But how does it relate to a developed civilised society’s tax system. Are you saying that Sir Freddy Goodwin should pay no more tax on his £750,000 a year pension than a nurse or teacher on their meagre salary? And if many of the people who don’t want to pay 50% tax on any income above £150,000 per year decide to leave the country will the country really be worse off? Many of the people affected by this tax inherited their wealth and contribute no more to the economic wellbeing of the country than you or I and probably a good deal less. Many other people affected are working for financial institutions and are still being vastly over paid for skills and risk taking behaviour that has actually cost this country billions of pounds that we will be paying for for generations. If anybody from these two groups decided to leave then good riddance, they won’t be missed.
I agree that this tax may result in some talented and entrepreneurial people deciding to leave and that is a shame and they will be missed. But where will they go? Despite the problems over the last 18 months this country is still one of the best for rewarding genuine hard work, talent and entrepreneurial behaviour irrespective of background.
These talented entrepreneurial people wont go. Where will they go? They might talk the talk but its all wind really.
The average man/women (the masses) pays for everything not the rich.
Are you blaming the Labour party and Gordon Brown for the implosion of the world financial markets? If the Tories were in power over the last 18 months what would they have done to protect the UK from the castastrophic effects of the virtual collapse of the world's banking system which started in the USA? Are you saying that if Labour were not in power the collapse would not have happened?
Fair point however it seems to be common ground amongst financal experts that we will be hit harder and for longer due the level of debt already run up before the world wide slump.
It wasn't the Tories that chucked OUR money about like a kid in a sweet shop and left nothing in the piggy bank for if it went pete tong.
[cite]Posted By: Barn Door Varney[/cite]Fair point however it seems to be common ground amongst financal experts that we will be hit harder and for longer due the level of debt already run up before the world wide slump.
It wasn't the Tories that chucked OUR money about like a kid in a sweet shop and left nothing in the piggy bank for if it went pete tong.
No but they did free up the banking system to allow such a crisis to ferment over years.
[cite]Posted By: Barn Door Varney[/cite]Fair point however it seems to be common ground amongst financal experts that we will be hit harder and for longer due the level of debt already run up before the world wide slump.
It wasn't the Tories that chucked OUR money about like a kid in a sweet shop and left nothing in the piggy bank for if it went pete tong.
No but they did free up the banking system to allow such a crisis to ferment over years.
Who was it who chucked away the enormous amount of wealth we earned from North Sea oil in the eighties on tax cuts for the rich rather than invest it in the infrastructure of the country?
[cite]Posted By: Barn Door Varney[/cite]Fair point however it seems to be common ground amongst financal experts that we will be hit harder and for longer due the level of debt already run up before the world wide slump.
It wasn't the Tories that chucked OUR money about like a kid in a sweet shop and left nothing in the piggy bank for if it went pete tong.
No but they did free up the banking system to allow such a crisis to ferment over years.
And labour allowed it to continue.
I agree. Never thought I would see a Labour Govt do what this one has done. And I have never voted for them either.
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]Who was it who chucked away the enormous amount of wealth we earned from North Sea oil in the eighties on tax cuts for the rich rather than invest it in the infrastructure of the country?
[cite]Posted By: Red_in_SE8[/cite]Who was it who chucked away the enormous amount of wealth we earned from North Sea oil in the eighties on tax cuts for the rich rather than invest it in the infrastructure of the country?
What so we've had no oil revenue in the nineties?
Or the noughties?
This Govt has well and truely fecked up the economy; not just now but for decades to come. "No more boom and bust" - my arse.
They spent years slagging off the Tories and have now spent years trying to do what the Tories did without the intelligence, commercial nouse and the ability to think anything other than short -termism.
Who sold the majority of the Country's Gold Reserve, when Gold was at its lowest real level for over 100 years?
Who got into bed with these bankers who got greedier and greedier with nobody to check what they were doing. The fsa? Fundementaly Stupid Arseholes.
Who positively encouraged banks, businesses and individuals to borrow, borrow, borrow - with yet again no controls on how it could be paid back?
And most importantly - WHO THE FECK HAS VOTED FOR THIS TOSSER TO BECOME OUT PRIME MINISTER?
Unellected and unellectable - the sooner he fecks off to run the Scottish Parliament the better.
[cite]Posted By: Chirpy[/cite]Great story here that sums up how the tax system in the UK works :
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
I loved the story, but in reality it'd probably turn out that the two, apparently poorest men, had good accountants and were drinking for free despite having pots of cash ferreted away offshore or something.
Goodbye labour, you won't be missed. The problems they have created are to allow the public to get fleeced in the good times to pay for a huge and ineffecient public sector that chucks taxpayers money around like confetti. They are responsible for allowing the gas companies, electric, water, local authorities, petrol companies, supermarkets, train operators to fleece money out of the public with no control over the amounts and the consequences on the ordinary working people, just so they can throw the money at pet social engineering projects or making a larger proportion of the country rely on the state to get some of their money back in tax credits. Why have they allowed these providers to make billions of pounds profit each year in what amounts to monopoly conditions with no supervision? The only reason possible is the taxes such profits mean for the govt coffers. Another example of indirect taxation. They wasted a healthy economy when they took it over and have left is in the shiite again. Up the workers indeed, up the age they will have to work until to pay the debts of the scum with their noses at the bottom of the trough.
What gets me is that there is NO incentive for entrepreneurial people. Banks are being told to lend money to small and medium sized businesses, but are in fact, not lending to anybody.
So, somebody running their own business (ie, ME!) has to beg, steal and borrow or use longer credit terms with other businesses - who are all struggling to survive also, because the bank is afraid to give modest facilities or even standard factoring against binding, legally enforceable contracts.
With no cash coming into business, there is no way for businesses to generate cash/spending and stimulate the economy. So, you find a way to get through all this pig shit and then when you've done that, and worked your bollocks off doing it, you find out that the government haven't come up with a great tax scheme for small/medium sized new businesses - (like a zero corporation tax rate?) and then if you do have a stellar year and want to pay yourself a nice big bonus and dividend because you've lived off fuck all for the last 6-9 months, you're suddenly going to pay more tax and national insurance than ever!
I agree with those sentiments superclive. I am in the same boat. What gets my goat is that after the government spent billions of pounds of our money bailing out the banks it has failed to force those banks to lend money to small businesses. FFS we own those banks now! The result is that the only thing that has been achieved is to keep thousands and thousands of overpaid people in their jobs who are effectively contributing nothing to the economy because the banks they are working for are no longer functioning properly. And we are going to be paying their salaries for years to come.
Comments
Good story Chirpy Red
Yes you are quite right, we should all hold a collection outside the ground on Saturday to raise some cash to offset the extra tax that the first team squad and the Geordie Smiler (allegedly) are going to have to pay.
And the richest people get to employ the best accountants to ensure that they pay as little tax as possible.
Although I am currently in receipt of some state benefits I dont consider myself to be either a scumbag pikey or an asylum seeker and dont really see what any of thats got to do with it.
Bearing in mind the tiered system of income tax I think 50% is an acceptable top level tax and if I were in that position I would pay it.
As an aside I worked out for my father how much in employee National Insurance conts he paid in his lifetime in work (49 years) and compared that to his state pension. His contributions paid for 6 months of his state pension eg from 65 to 65 ys 6 mths. As he lived for another 14 years beyond that where did the money come from. There is of course no State Pension Fund. It comes out of current taxation. Of course during his lifetime there were Health costs too and payments made by his Employer but the dynamics are huge.
In short a significant part of current taxation is paying for our unfunded State Pension system. A system that those paying the taxes now wont benefit from at the same retirement age and same level of benefit.
I agree that this tax may result in some talented and entrepreneurial people deciding to leave and that is a shame and they will be missed. But where will they go? Despite the problems over the last 18 months this country is still one of the best for rewarding genuine hard work, talent and entrepreneurial behaviour irrespective of background.
Glad you posted that Red in SE8. I was thinking there cant be many people who would object to Sir Freddy paying a top rate of 50%.
These talented entrepreneurial people wont go. Where will they go? They might talk the talk but its all wind really.
The average man/women (the masses) pays for everything not the rich.
What it actually raises is a piss in the Ocean when compared to how much debt Brown and his cronies will lumber us with.
It wasn't the Tories that chucked OUR money about like a kid in a sweet shop and left nothing in the piggy bank for if it went pete tong.
No but they did free up the banking system to allow such a crisis to ferment over years.
And labour allowed it to continue.
I agree. Never thought I would see a Labour Govt do what this one has done. And I have never voted for them either.
Kanu ?
What so we've had no oil revenue in the nineties?
Or the noughties?
This Govt has well and truely fecked up the economy; not just now but for decades to come. "No more boom and bust" - my arse.
They spent years slagging off the Tories and have now spent years trying to do what the Tories did without the intelligence, commercial nouse and the ability to think anything other than short -termism.
Who sold the majority of the Country's Gold Reserve, when Gold was at its lowest real level for over 100 years?
Who got into bed with these bankers who got greedier and greedier with nobody to check what they were doing. The fsa? Fundementaly Stupid Arseholes.
Who positively encouraged banks, businesses and individuals to borrow, borrow, borrow - with yet again no controls on how it could be paid back?
And most importantly - WHO THE FECK HAS VOTED FOR THIS TOSSER TO BECOME OUT PRIME MINISTER?
Unellected and unellectable - the sooner he fecks off to run the Scottish Parliament the better.
I loved the story, but in reality it'd probably turn out that the two, apparently poorest men, had good accountants and were drinking for free despite having pots of cash ferreted away offshore or something.
So, somebody running their own business (ie, ME!) has to beg, steal and borrow or use longer credit terms with other businesses - who are all struggling to survive also, because the bank is afraid to give modest facilities or even standard factoring against binding, legally enforceable contracts.
With no cash coming into business, there is no way for businesses to generate cash/spending and stimulate the economy. So, you find a way to get through all this pig shit and then when you've done that, and worked your bollocks off doing it, you find out that the government haven't come up with a great tax scheme for small/medium sized new businesses - (like a zero corporation tax rate?) and then if you do have a stellar year and want to pay yourself a nice big bonus and dividend because you've lived off fuck all for the last 6-9 months, you're suddenly going to pay more tax and national insurance than ever!
What a fucking joke.
End of.