Forum menu
could you take 5 minutes to address the comments about corporation tax as its tedious to see you move to a new subject when your grasp has been shown to be weak
its like people dont want to have any understanding they just want to state an opinion irrespective of the facts
Isn't that just the pension that comes with the job?just5minutes
Which is funny because it came straight out of the mouth of John McDonnell who has a very nice £1.5m pension pot he hasn't paid a penny towards. But sitting on £1.5m you haven't paid for yourself apparently = "working class hero".
So the same as every other MP who has stood for as long as he has?
For someone earning £80k every £1 they earn at that level is taxed at 54.8p hence my calculation. When people talk about salaries and earnings they talk about the gross salary of the employee so adding in employers NI and expressing that relative to the stated salary is the right calculation in my view.
This is wrong because the 54.8p is taken out of a 112.8p cost to the employer of [s]employing that person[/s] raising their salary by £1. If you're going to add it to the tax you have to add it to the salary too. That gives a marginal tax rate of 48.6%, the employee taking home 51.4% of the cost [s]to employ him[/s] of £1 increase in salary(58p out of 112.8p).
What comments? The only comment is from Lifer who said there are other factors but didn't say what they are.
Junkyard - lazarus
If you do not understand the issue you are trying to explain to us then please dont try and explain it to us.here is a simple [ and suitably right wing explanation] for you
[url] https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7 [/url]
"Surely if the rate makes no difference to actual receipts there would be no point?"
Straw man no onw has said they make no difference they have said other things also make a difference as the article will explain to you.
JP Morgan: Theresa May losing the general election would be good for the pound
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/thersa-may-tories-losing-good-pound-labour-win-economy-markets-jp-morgan-analysis-a7763596.html
Aren't JP Morgan one of the corrupt institution?AlexSimon - Member
JP Morgan: Theresa May losing the general election would be good for the pound
According to [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38013723 ]BBC News.[/url]- [b]JP Morgan pays $264m to settle China 'bribery' probe[/b]
So you are referencing another corrupt institution? They are all over the news you know ... 😆
So JP Morgan are saying it is good for pound because they want loads of money? 😆
Yes, it shows that they are already turning on their own 🙂
Ahem:- Corporation Tax receipts in the last full year were a record £56Bn - with the rate now standing at 19%. So reducing the rate brings in more money.
Not if it's enforced.
AlexSimon - Member
Yes, it shows that they are already turning on their own
You mean like guardian newspaper who loves money so much?
😆
[url= https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#7e724b175969 ]The Insufferable hypocrisy of the guardian on corporation tax[/url]
All this talk of tax has reminded me... the Labour manifesto also mentions they'll be using the 'Robin Hood' tax, which seems like a bloody good idea:
Bear in mind this video is 7 years old, so the idea has been floating around unused for quite a while for some reason...
EDIT - guess that's your answer JY
Chewkw operating with a 4 year delay today
Of course once you hit £100k the marginal tax rate jumps to over 60% (employee marginal tax rate and higher again if you add in the employers tax which is a tax on the job) due to loss of personal allowance.
Factually and logically incorrect.
If it's really true that jamba has a job in finance, and not just washing bottles, it's frightening to think that such people are in charge of my pension.
Factually and logically incorrect
Actually, for once he's right. The personal allowance is withdrawn for incomes over £100k at the rate of £1 for every 2 earned. That has the effect of making the marginal rate of income tax for income £100-120(ish)k 60%.
Of course once you hit £100k the marginal tax rate jumps to over 60% (employee marginal tax rate and higher again if you add in the employers tax which is a tax on the job) due to loss of personal allowance.
Although completely avoidable up to £140k as you can just use salary sacrifice pension (up to £40k pa) to bring your PAYE salary down to under £100k.
Lifer - Member
Chewkw operating with a 4 year delay today
You mean people know this for so long yet still support them? It's even worst innit. 😆
Actually, for once he's right.
In which case I apologise
chewkw - Member
Lifer - Member
Chewkw operating with a 4 year delay todayYou mean people know this for so long yet still support them? It's even worst innit.
Ahem.
I once saw the unfortunate and delusional David Icke being interviewed by Terry Wogan.
After Icke announcing that he was the returned messiah, the audience broke into laughter.
Icke's expression indicated that he thought he'd scored a point, so Wogan leaned across, patted him gently on the knee and said:
"David, David... they're laughing AT you, not WITH you..." 😉
Actually, for once he's right. The personal allowance is withdrawn for incomes over £100k at the rate of £1 for every 2 earned. That has the effect of making the marginal rate of income tax for income £100-120(ish)k 60%.
But saying that marginal rates of tax is what everyone is talking about when they talk about tax is nonsense - it's generally used by people to moan 'I pay 50% tax' as if that's what they pay on all their earnings.
The haves moaning about being hard done by, must admit makes me feel really sorry for them... 😕
Get a bit of perspective ffs...
But saying that marginal rates of tax is what everyone is talking about when they talk about tax is nonsense - it's generally used by people to moan 'I pay 50% tax' as if that's what they pay on all their earnings.
Have you noticed that they always want to talk about income tax, and not all the other taxes that disproportionately hit poorer people?
Mr Woppit - Member
Ahem.I once saw the unfortunate and delusional David Icke being interviewed by Terry Wogan.
After Icke announcing that he was the returned messiah, the audience broke into laughter.
Icke's expression indicated that he thought he'd scored a point, so Wogan leaned across, patted him gently on the knee and said:
"David, David... they're laughing AT you, not WITH you..."
Just referring to this example of Icke. (not referring to anyone on the forum including meself)
You do understand that most celebrities are not really that concerned about others views don't you? They have thick skin and that's their job ... to look like a fool, be a fool, to be fooled and to fool others. 😆
not all the other taxes that disproportionately hit poorer people?
interesting thought - do you think that Petrol, for example, should be subject to more progressive taxation than the punitive rates applied across the board at the moment? Cheaper for poor people and more expensive for rich people?
Beer? Fags?
interesting thought - do you think that Petrol, for example, should be subject to more progressive taxation than the punitive rates applied across the board at the moment? Cheaper for poor people and more expensive for rich people?Beer? Fags?
VAT should be removed from essential items such as food and clothes (with a limit where it is applied - Basic food and clothing are essential, a Chanel dress for £2000 is not.)
To account for losses of VAT on the essential items, much higher VAT should be placed on luxury items (say 50%). This would make it harder for the rich to avoid taxes while reducing tax for the poorest.
sounds like a great idea ninfan! 🙂 we could give people a purchase card based on their tax code.
A wealth / land tax would be better...
interesting thought - do you think that Petrol, for example, should be subject to more progressive taxation than the punitive rates applied across the board at the moment? Cheaper for poor people and more expensive for rich people?Beer? Fags?
I think we should revise Council tax so it has higher bands, abolish NI and incorporate it within income tax, remove higher rate tax relief, increase inheritance tax, increase fuel duties to cross-subsidise public transport, and remove VAT from at least some clothing.
That'll do for starters.
Who decides who's poor and needs subsidising and who's rich and needs to pay more? I'd say I fall in the middle but I've had mates on benefits call me rich (and only half jokingly) and I assume someone like Alan Sugar would wonder how I manage to survive day to day on my lowly income.
I only just creep into paying higher rate income tax (obviously only on a very small part of my earnings), personally I feel I contribute enough revenue to the country and the fact I have almost zero savings means others are benefiting as well from whatever I take home, sure some of that goes abroad but a lot is in the UK.
VAT should be removed from essential items such as food and clothes (with a limit where it is applied - Basic food and clothing are essential, a Chanel dress for £2000 is not.)
To account for losses of VAT on the essential items, much higher VAT should be placed on luxury items (say 50%). This would make it harder for the rich to avoid taxes while reducing tax for the poorest.
You do realise thats how it all started out? Halcyon days, where push along lawnmowers were 'standard' rate VAT, powered ones a higher VAT rate as they were "luxury goods", Car parts 'standard' but Caravans 'luxury' - it was an utter minefield and cast aside for that very reason.
Food is already excluded, as are childrens clothes - surely the point of VAT being a percentage is that you pay more tax on Chanel than Primark anyway, so it seems to me to needlessly overcomplicate it, and probably be impossible
Of course - only once we are out of the EU do all these options become possible 😀
A national debate that wont reach an amount where we have unanimityWho decides who's poor and needs subsidising and who's rich and needs to pay more?
IMHO th ebest method is either
1. A multiplier on the average wage or household wage
2. A percentage point at which you exclude say the bottom 75 % +
It wont reach unanimity but its really not rocket science to do this
FWIW the 80k is the top 5% of earners Surely we can actually call them rich?
To account for losses of VAT on the essential items, much higher VAT should be placed on luxury items (say 50%).
Mountain bikes? 😉
A wealth / land tax would be better...
Again, interesting.
So, if I spend all my hard earned on coke and hookers, I pay no tax - I'm skint because I have no wealth left, but if I save it up I'm now 'wealthy' and have to hand it back to the government?
If I live in a council or rented house on benefits, the government pay my rent in my retirement - But if I work and buy my own house, I am now 'wealthy' and have to pay the government in order to punish me for my own prudence.
I can see that working out well in the long term....
FWIW the 80k is the top 5% of earners Surely we can actually call them rich?
The problem with words like rich/poor is they mean different things to different people and the standard of living associated with a salary has a lot to do with where you live.
I can see that working out well in the long term....
No tax scheme copes with all extreme/daft user cases...
Given that most well off people have a lot of assets, it is much fairer, in that those with more pay more.
And no, you don't hand all your wealth back, you just pay a small percentage as part of the social contract.
ninfan - Member
So, if I spend all my hard earned on coke and hookers, I pay no tax
Only due to the stupidity(or complicity depending on how you look at it) of governments that allow the black markets a free reign.
Given that most well off people have a lot of assets, it is much fairer, in that those with more pay more.
The point is though that assets don't necessarily relate to income or cashflow.
Plenty of retirees who are theoretically well off/asset rich but, particularly given the reductions in interest rates and and annuity rates, have little disposable income.
If you take that away, then wheres the point in saving at all? they might as well just spend it on expensive holidays and then rely on the welfare state in retirement.
The point is though that assets don't necessarily relate to income or cashflow.
They can always be liquidated though eg older people in large houses can, in theory, downsize.
There is no such thing as a perfect tax scheme and any change has winners and loosers. Currently we just hike indirect taxes which disproportionately hit the poor, which is morally indefensible.
If you take that away, then wheres the point in saving at all? they might as well just spend it on expensive holidays and then rely on the welfare state in retirement.
Again, a deliberately daft example. No wealth tax would be 100%, so it would never tax it all away. As for living off just the state pension, no one who can afford not to, would choose to do so.
surely the point of VAT being a percentage is that you pay more tax on Chanel than Primark anyway, so it seems to me to needlessly overcomplicate it, and probably be impossible
May seem over complicated to you, but then guessing you are not scraping around to be able to get enough money to buy Primark clothes.
Not a bad idea, more money in the economy. Rather than languish in peoples accounts accruing interest.ninfan - MemberIf you take that away, then wheres the point in saving at all? they might as well just spend it on expensive holidays and then rely on the welfare state in retirement.
Rather than languish in peoples accounts accruing interest.
Have you looked at savings rates recently? 😉
Mountain bikes?
Yep, high VAT on Mountain bikes. They are not essential and if you want to spend less get an old one. I hear 26" wheeled ones are good value...
Even being able to think about spending £3000 on a mountain bike means you are well off compared to A LOT of people in this country.
(awaits the yeah but I don't but this or that and it is my hobby BS)
There is no such thing as a perfect tax scheme and any change has winners and loosers. Currently we just hike indirect taxes which disproportionately hit the poor, which is morally indefensible.
I would be cautious with the comment that they 'disproportionately hit the poor', A significant amount of that that is down to personal choice - again, the Beer and Fags element - Of which there is, no doubt, a significant correlation with poverty/lower social classes (for want of a better phrase) but I'm not sure you can really point to it as being an inherent unfairness in the system that the government should be held responsible for.
ninfan - MemberIf you take that away, then wheres the point in saving at all? they might as well just spend it on expensive holidays and then rely on the welfare state in retirement.
It's not a good idea to discourage people from saving. All sorts of bad things happen.
indeed
recently being the operative word there. Point still stands, hoarding cash isn't good for the economy.footflaps - Member
Rather than languish in peoples accounts accruing interest.
Have you looked at savings rates recently?
It's not a good idea to discourage people from saving. All sorts of bad things happen
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/31/uk-households-savings-fall-record-low-warning-sign-economy ]oh[/url]
It's not a good idea to discourage people from saving. All sorts of bad things happen
No reason why a wealth tax would do that...
After all we have income tax rates of > 40% and people don't refuse to work....
[quote="ransos"]...abolish NI and incorporate it within income tax...
Good luck getting any pensioners to vote for that, it would take a big chunk out of their income (pension income does not currently attract NI).
Good luck getting any pensioners to vote for that, it would take a big chunk out of their income (pension income does not currently attract NI).
Nobody will do it because it would look as though basic rate tax had shot up. But the present system is ludicrous.
jamba - can I just check, that wasn't you on QT last night was it? Because there was a chap with a handful of paperwork doing a very similar Laffer Curve argument...
[quote=chewkw ]You do understand that most celebrities are not really that concerned about others views don't you? They have thick skin and that's their job ... to look like a fool, be a fool, to be fooled and to fool others.
I'm impressed. Even for you, to have quite that great a misunderstanding of other people's motivations is unusual. Of course celebrities are totally uninterested in what other people think of them, and that's why they become celebrities.
Some light relief:
chewkw... They have thick skin and that's their job ... to look like a fool, be a fool, to be fooled [s]and to fool others[/s].
Oh. I didn't realise you were a celebrity...
😆Mr Woppit - Member
chewkw... They have thick skin and that's their job ... to look like a fool, be a fool, to be fooled and to fool others.
Oh. [s]I didn't realise you were a celebrity[/s]...
9 fat Bald ugly unfit white fat Tory bastards, these 9 were just 7% of the Question Time audience, yet they got in 30% of the questions
9 fat Bald ugly unfit white fat
Contribute 80% of forum posts
Lol
Randomly bumped into Corbyn last week in kings cross, he was buying a disgusting looking green smoothie... What really struck me was that he had a couple of staff and an obvious protection officer but they were all stood off, just watching while crowds of randoms walked up to him and said hi- selfies, handshakes, quick chats, all that. No smarm, no management, no deflecting people away so they can get a fake photo op of "Jeremy meeting people", not one placard. And no media- the only cameras were punters. And a nonstop mob of people coming to him, all just spreading by word of mouth- interest and enthusiasm. Lots of people wanting to say hello or get a touch.
I hung around for a bit people watching and even people just walking past seemed pleasantly surprised, "****ing hell, it's Corbyn!" was the recurring theme. A couple of shaking heads but no heckles, not one angry person. I told him "I hope you win but I'm voting SNP", he said "Yes, scottish people keep telling me that", good natured and natural.
People keep saying "politicians don't meet real people" or "it's all stage managed" or in Corbyn's case "He only ever meets Momentum people". Probably people would say "It's London" but not everyone in London votes Labour and obviously lots of people walking out of kings cross aren't londoners, I'm not.
Compare and contrast with Theresa May being delivered to sealed events in Scotland without ever touching the ground or meeting anyone that isn't a party member or employee. It shouldn't feel weird or interesting, to see a senior politician out meeting the public without a protective screen, but it does now- in fact there's this pervasive assumption that this is just how it is, politicians have People and Events and you see them on TV or when they come to you for a stunt. We have politicians turn up for stuff at my work quite often and he was both the most natural and the most accessible by miles- even bloody Willie Rennie has more handlers.
Obviously good natured responses and selfies don't translate into a single vote- I'm still voting SNP after all. But it was an interesting thing to see. OTOH he'd be pretty easy to assasinate.
In contrast, I had the misfortune to see Boris in Uxbridge town centre. It was a bit like stepping in a large and smelly turd. He was carefully mussing his hair to appear in selfies while 2 black-suited goons looked on.
Isn't it amazing how the thread has slowly died off in comparison to the bumbling Maybot
(and in further contrast, I saw the leader of one of Denmark's main political parties wandering casually down a busy pedestrianized street in Copenhagen and looking very good in a mini-skirt)
People seem to have stopped talking about Brexit too...
9 fat Bald ugly unfit white fat
Ah, the "progressive" left...
Me, Mrs and stepson were having a meal after Tuesday's Albert Square vigil and Jeremy Corbyn was passing the end of our table. I congratulated him and he stopped and chatted for about 5 minutes, very personable and charming bloke running a very good campaign. As above, nothing staged and a very relaxed (and very small) entourage.
Ah, the "progressive" left...
Am i wrong?
no.
Did we do, Labour spending plans endorsed by 129 economists?
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jun/03/the-big-issue-labour-manifesto-what-economy-needs ]https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jun/03/the-big-issue-labour-manifesto-what-economy-needs[/url]
"Stephen Hawking, regularly referred to as the world's smartest man, has backed Jeremy Corbyn."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-jeremy-corbyn-labour-theresa-may-conservatives-endorsement-general-election-a7774016.html
One of the things that happened early on in Corbyn's leadership was the forming of a circle of economists to advise him. It seemed to break down at the leadership challenge last year which was a disappointment. Good to see some of the names from that on the list though. Namely Simon Wren-Lewis and Ann Pettifor.greentricky - MemberDid we do, Labour spending plans endorsed by 129 economists?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jun/03/the-big-issue-labour-manifesto-what-economy-needs
Edit: Danny Blanchflower isn't on that list, but has separately endorsed Labour in this election.
Blimey, he's that good he's endorsed by a dead Spurs captain as well as the great economist David Blanchflower.
I don't watch telly, so I missed this.
Hopefully this is effective:
Having read the whole tax debate on the last few pages I think a lot of people need to pull their head out of their arse. My pre-tax salary is barely half of the post tax take-home of the >£80k earners and yet with a little careful spending I can lead what I consider a very luxurious life - I have 3 bikes, a fun car, at least 1 holiday a year and can enjoy a good evening out whenever I like... Yes I agree to have got to the position of earning that much they (mostly) deserve to be rewarded but I genuinely struggle to conceive what you would spend all that money on to actually improve quality of life. Have some compassion for those less fortunate for crying out loud!
But, But Rsl1...
I genuinely struggle to conceive what you would spend all that money on to actually improve quality of life
More holidays, even funner car, 6 bikes and even better evenings out. Although in reality most of it probably goes on bigger mortgages and makes no difference to quality of life.
Happiness is not directly equal to quality of life but is a factor and research shows that once you get past around £40K happiness does not get better. Guess that is really telling us that a materialistic life doesn't actually make anyone happier...
Id concur, looking at the miserable reactions of some of the tories on here...
once you get past around £40K happiness does not get better.
depends where in the country you are on that 40k. House prices in London are now 14 times the average salary.
Sort of makes the labour plans for tax rates seem unfair if they are not going to take into account cost of living.
And as taxes from london and the south east already subsidise the rest of the country so they can have free prescriptions and university then labour must be pretty sure that their unfair taxation policies are going to work and not screw up the 'cash-cow' areas.
Sort of makes the labour plans for tax rates seem unfair if they are not going to take into account cost of living.
That’s (partly) the idea - if it is uncomfortably expensive to live in London, try living somewhere where it is more comfortable. Spread the wealth geographically as well.
That’s (partly) the idea - if it is uncomfortably expensive to live in London, try living somewhere where it is more comfortable. Spread the wealth geographically as well.
and earn less, and contribute less tax ? And less tax to support the welfare system ?
That makes a lot of sense.
if it is uncomfortably expensive to live in London, try living somewhere where it is more comfortable.
Wasnt that referred to as "Social Cleansing" ?
That’s (partly) the idea - if it is uncomfortably expensive to live in London, try living somewhere where it is more comfortable. Spread the wealth geographically as well
Can you persuade all my potential employers to move to Bristol then? That would be awesome.
Can you persuade all my potential employers to move to Bristol then? That would be awesome.
Had this conversation with my brother looking at houses near Cambridge/London commuter line. They were worried about off shoring in some ways and getting talent. I suggested they went to Leeds/Manc and paid london wages imagine the talent they would get for that - nah who would want to live there