You're debating with yourself. Everyone else is talking about the whole of society NOT one organisation.
You're debating with yourself. Everyone else is talking about the whole of society NOT one organisation.
This.
We're not talking about the minimum wage workers in the widget factory being needed for the head of widget sales management to earn £200k + bonuses, we're talking about the health care worker on minimum wage who is getting the head of widget sales management's mum out of bed and fed on a morning, the teaching assistant looking after and educating his son, the sexual health charity helping to stop his daughter getting knocked up, the labourer who repairs the roads that his widgets travel along to his customers, the postman who delivers the invoices....
It's obvious why Rooney earns way more than a nurse
I think you [ and THM in his glee] missed this bit of my original post
I doubt many of us think this is right [b]even though we can explain why it happened[/b]
I did not say I could not explain it.
We can all have different interpretations you don't seem to be able to grasp that.
Until reading this I had not realised that folk had different interpretations so thankfully you are still 100% correct and I have not disproved that one 😕
Once again fixating on direct tax paid and ignoring all other contributions.
yes, lets not lets fact get in the way of a good argument!
It is a slight digression to what I originally posted about, but it was touched on by an earlier post and relates to what each person's existence costs the state. I firmly believe that each and every household should be given an annual statement from the government breaking down the costings for everything they receive. I agree that in principle it would cost a huge amount to implement such a process, but it might make people open their eyes to the fact that most take more from the state than they pay in.
I am trying to find the illustration where it shows the split of tax payers who take the most and least from state but can't find it, it's quite an eye opener..
Not the illustration, but the Nick Robinson program that showed tax paid vs benefits received
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966 ]Nick Robinson Documentary[/url]
An interesting thread.
I'm lucky enough to fall into the "60%" threshold, though am far more concerned about the increase of the minimum wage to a living wage (my employer pays the living wage to the few who find themsves earning at that level) than I am about shaving my tax contribution.
I'm lucky, and I know it. And I'm content to know that there's more to life than measuring my fellow man (and woman) by the amount of tax they pay. If that's our only relationship then we're doomed.
[i]In 2010-11 the Treasury paid out £692bn in public spending. This adds up to £22,000 being spent on behalf of each family, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. [/i]
and with income at £589bn...
Although I reckon the £692bn is ALL public spending; welfare, defence, Govt, education etc - so a pretty meaningless number, except that it is far greater than income.
Maybe i should ask for a massive pay rise on the basis that I would then be a net tax contributor, which, not only being better for everyone else, would also make me bloody Jesus...
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
? Elizabeth Warren
Was she pissed at the time?
Was she pissed at the time?
The former Harvard professor, now US Senator? Possibly, though she's a Methodist and I don't think they're meant to drink?
Oh dear, wrote that sober?
"The rest of us paid for...." Gets you into Harvard?
You may be confusing something said in a speech with Harvard entry qualifications.
Quote from the Nick Robinson piece
"The top 10% of earners pay 5 times more in tax than they get back in government spending (education/nhs/welfare etc). The problem for politicians is that those in the middle of the earnings scale simply do not believe they receive more in spending than they pay in taxes"
@br it's not meaningless as the bills have to be paid, we all have to contribute towards defense. Agreed on the spending vs income deficit
The problem for politicians is that those in the middle of the earnings scale simply do not believe they receive more in spending than they pay in taxes
ah the whats in it for me brigade. The Elizabeth Warren quote is very good, at times it's like the I pay too much tax/why can't we have amazing cycling infrastructure and pay our nurses/soldiers and firefighters like premiership footballers.
The top 10% of earners pay 5 times more in tax than they get back in government spending (education/nhs/welfare etc).
Which is what anyone would expect; I'd have assumed it was more than that, to be honest.
The problem for politicians is that those in the middle of the earnings scale simply do not believe they receive more in spending than they pay in taxes
I get loads in return for mine. I have two kids at state school - that costs the government £5k per child per year which is [i]way[/i] less than I'd pay to send them private if there were no state schools. In fact, that probably takes all of my income tax payments, so everything else I get is free 😉
I don't quite earn enough to pay 40% tax, but I'm probably still in the top 10% and I'm very comfortably off.
+1. Plus people do like to forget that it's the poor who pay a disproportionately high percentage of their income in tax, which matters rather a lot when you don't have much to start with.
I love this thread, it starts with some wealthy people complaining that they pay too much tax and then morphs into some wealthy people telling us how we would all be screwed if they didn't pay their taxes.
You can't be Scrooge and Jesus at the same time folks...
Can anyone tell me if Labour are going to reverse the university fee situation? Not a loaded question, I'm genuinely interested.
Edit; just GTS'd
Cutting tuition fees from £9,000 to £6,000 will reduce average graduate debt by nearly £9,000. And because our plan is fully funded, it means £40 billion less government debt by 2030-31, or over £10 billion less government debt over the next Parliament. We will also help students from lower and middle-income families by increasing student grants by £400, so that the full grant goes up from around £3,400 to around £3,800. More than half of students will benefit. We will pay for the grant increase by asking the highest earning graduates to pay more: increasing the interest rate on the loan from 3 to 4 per cent for those earning over £41,000. This will make the overall system of repayment fairer, but all students will be better off overall as a result of our plan – with less debt, and less to repay.
So, by a [i]bit[/i] is the answer and it'll be funded by stopping tax relief on pensions for high earners.
Which one wrecker? The ones they introduced or the ones the coalition introduced?
Can anyone tell me if Labour are going to reverse the university fee situation? Not a loaded question, I'm genuinely interested.
They're proposing lowering the fee from £9k per year to £6k per year, which will make no difference to the majority of graduates as most won't ever pay off their loans fully regardless of their level.
taking Mikes point it's a clever idea... loans at that level (if still backed by the government overall) are just a way of paying the university the money but pretending it will all get paid back. The government still forks out up front and pays the fee's just has a mechanism to tax graduates a higher rate.
They're proposing lowering the fee from £9k per year to £6k per year, which will make no difference to the majority of graduates as most won't ever pay off their loans fully regardless of their level.
Yes, the system introduced by the present government is actually costing more than the old one.
I love this thread, it starts with some wealthy people complaining that they pay too much tax and then morphs into some wealthy people telling us how we would all be screwed if they didn't pay their taxes.
You can't be Scrooge and Jesus at the same time folks...
I'm with you on this. Get paid over £100k and complaining that you pay too much tax is pretty tasteless. Also before anyone says this is me being jealous I'm the MD of a company across 7 countries.
International stationery division slow today tony? 🙂
Boring conference in Lisbon 🙂 death by PowerPoint
Has anyone really complained about paying too much tax? Just because some of us, myself included, have criticised this particular anomaly in the tax system, it doesn't mean that I think I pay too much tax.
Boring conference in Lisbon death by PowerPoint
Just noticed the International Egg Conference is on in Lisbon today.
The potential for pun related yolks is huge.
Has anyone really complained about paying too much tax?
No no one has ever complained about this ever 😛
Yes they have. Many people, at various tax points, think they pay too much tax.
Sounds more fun than Molecular Diagnostics Europe!
[i]I'm with you on this. Get paid over £100k and complaining that you pay too much tax is pretty tasteless.[/i]
Not sure why you'd think this, any of us, irrelevant of earnings, is absolutely entitled to complain about paying too much tax.
Especially when you see how the Govt spends it.
I get over 100k and I happily pay tax, as I like contributing to society.
Junky, on this thread, NOT in general terms.
I get under 40k and I happily pay tax, as I like contributing to society.
😉
The number of people posting here that they earn over £100k explains why I can't afford anything reviewed in the magazine 🙂
The whole thread is about reducing/removing the anomaly between 100-120 which leads to many feeling they pay to much [ marginal] tax at this point. Personally I dont see how you can argue to reduce your tax bill without implicitily stating you are paying too much tax
On your broader point i dont think we have had a the state is too big, lets reduce all tax I pay too much etc style post but I may have missed it.
My post was largely tongue in cheek
How much you earn and how much you're willing to spend on a bike or anything else aren't always linked... ( I don't earn over 100k mind)
Can anyone tell me if Labour are going to reverse the university fee situation? Not a loaded question, I'm genuinely interested.
They're proposing lowering the fee from £9k per year to £6k per year, which will make no difference to the majority of graduates as most won't ever pay off their loans fully regardless of their level
It's shit like this which makes it impossible to trust the labour party with anything to do with money. They just love a soundbite but don't think through the realtities of what the are proposing.
The £9,000 a year figure is a nasty headline but it's not realy what people pay since not everyone pays back their load. And only the top earners will pay back the 27k + interest over their working life. If labour reduce the fees to 6k then these top earners now only have to pay 18k + interest back but the lower earner who would only have paid back 15k anyway still pays the same.
So bascially Labour's progressive and benevolent reduction in the student load just saves the richest a load of cash but doesn't help the people who earn less one little bit.
If they were serious about reducing the cost of being a student they could have scrapped fees entirely, funded via general taxation or even a graduate tax, or changed the thresholds at which you pay back your load.
But no, just a poorly though out headline. Incompetant idiots.
I get under 40k and I happily pay tax, as I like contributing to society.
And the link between the two parts of the sentence? Are any parts exclusive?
Re the bikes and £100k - good point - but equally perhaps some of those people have better uses of their money and/or lack the time to get the full benefit is a fancy bike. 😳
I got a free university education, just like the pricks who brought in fees.
They just love a soundbite but don't think through the realtities of what the are proposing.
I assume you can tell me where the Tories extra money for the NHS is coming [ was it 19 times the chancellor failed to answer it ?] or where the £12 billion welfare cuts are made?
your point is a valid one but to make it party political one just shows your bias.
I know your post was partly in jest, I should have put a smiley at the end of mine. I take your point on the reducing of taxable income but my point was to highlight how tax rates do influence behaviour. After all if you were offered an investment opportunity where a £40 initial investment immediately became £100 would you take it?
spot on Jfletch - link [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11534043/Rarely-has-an-election-campaign-seen-so-many-economically-silly-ideas.html ]here[/url] to an interesting article by Allister Heath (whos Cit AM articles i do miss!)
