Forum menu
mod in posting deliberately provocative subject on forum and using the word shocker... shocker!
[img] 
[/img]
Thread reported for obvious troll, designed to whip the usual suspects up into a frothing frenzy.
Jealous are we?
Why should people who create jobs for other people, make the UK operate, generally make the UK a richer country pay 50% of every thing they work there arses off for over to the tax man?
To make kittens sad.
Jealous are we?
Errr no, I'll still pay less tax.
pay 50% of every thing they work there arses off for over to the tax man?
You obviously have no idea how PAYE works
Expect more of this: leaks of changes which are unpalatable, then lo and behold in the budget they aren't there, making it all look better than it really is.
Why should people who create jobs for other people, make the UK operate, generally make the UK a richer country pay 50% of every thing they work there arses off for over to the tax man?
Don't be daft! Everyone knows the rich don't pay any tax. So it doesn't matter what the figure is. Its academic. Tax is for proles
Genuine food for thought there CaptJohn.
Can we start and then retract a rumour that they will introduce a (state) school dinner tax that helps pay for Tarquin's school fees? 😀
Why should people who create jobs for other people, make the UK operate, generally make the UK a richer country pay 50% of every thing they work there arses off for over to the tax man?
Because they need an educated healthy workforce, they need roads and transport, they need infrastructure to operate in, and most of all they need people with the wealth to buy their products and services. In short they need all of the opportunities that society provides to create their relative wealth, otherwise they will end up with a garage full of Ferraris and no roads to drive them on.
Look after "the rich" - you bet, it's the future of the country at stake !
The high rate tax payers will be the driving force of economic revival by making money and investing it in jobs.
The doleys don't pay taxes, the illegals don't pay taxes, the cash-in-handers don't pay taxes, the students don't pay taxes - if "the rich" leave the country who will support the lazy poor in their alcohol, nicotine and saturated fat fuelled lives ?
Why should people who create jobs for other people,
ah right it is an act of humanitarianism that they employ people and not because they can profit from this labour by paying them less for their labour than it earns.FFS it is not like the rich are going to get their hands dirty doing actual work is it
Really in this time of austerity and rising bills and stalled wages nothing can improve this economy except for swathing cuts to govt spending [ i call this **** the poor for brevity] and increasing the amount of money the rich get [ i call this the politics of greed]
really who expected anything less from the Tories with their BS pledges on the NHS and everything else they have and will always be the party that makes things better for the minority who are wealthy at the expenses of the majority who are not wealthy
How they manage to persuade many of these poor people to vote for them is the real mystery to me tbh
Once apon a tome The high rate tax payers will be the driving force of economic revival by making money and investing it in jobs and they all lived happily ever after
FTFY
So unemployment is only rising because tax is so high PMSL
i don't think that many people voted for the Tories, they voted LibDem because they felt cross with Gordon/Tony. Bet they feel good about that now 😉
[quote=fuzzhead said]i don't think that many people voted for the Tories,
10,703,654 people did apparently.
10,703,654 people did apparently.
Whichever whay you spin that number, it isn't an election 'victory' by a long stretch. Yet we seem to have a Conservative government. Perhaps the notion of 'hey, we're not a Conservative government, we're a coalition' is the excuse for doing so much stuff that wasn't in their manifesto. 😆
Junkyard - MemberSo unemployment is only rising because tax is so high PMSL
No, because the skanks are better off on the dole.....
Look after "the rich" - you bet, it's the future of the country at stake !The high rate tax payers will be the driving force of economic revival by making money and investing it in jobs.
The doleys don't pay taxes, the illegals don't pay taxes, the cash-in-handers don't pay taxes, the students don't pay taxes - if "the rich" leave the country who will support the lazy poor in their alcohol, nicotine and saturated fat fuelled lives ?
This sounds like an advert for that extremely crap book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
[quote=julianwilson said]Whichever whay you spin that number, it isn't an election 'victory' by a long stretch. Yet we seem to have a Conservative government. Perhaps the notion of 'hey, we're not a Conservative government, we're a coalition' is the excuse for doing so much stuff that wasn't in their manifesto.
Have you seen the 2005 results ? If you think 2010 wasn't a victory then 2005 was a travesty!
No, because the skanks are better off on the dole.....
As someone who is rapidly heading to the dole queue for the first time in 30 years, my enquiries suggest I'll be raking in about 20% of what I earn now
jota180 - Member
As someone who is rapidly heading to the dole queue for the first time in 30 years, my enquiries suggest I'll be raking in about 20% of what I earn now
well after 30 years at work you should be able to take early retirement if you've made adequate provisions.....
allthepies, 2005 was a 'victory' in terms of winning a parliamentary majority under (what I consider to be a flawed) FPTP electoral system, which the overwhelming majority of conservatives nevertheless supported at the AV referendum. 😕
And now the solution to their poor 'seat count' in 2010 would seem to be [s]gerrymandering[/s] constituency boundary changes.
Smooth.
If the rich drive the economy (an idea not supported by elementary economics) then it would be a good idea to tax them more to enourage them to increase their income by investing more and working harder. Giving money to the rich(with a high mps) produces little benefit for the economy but a great benefit for them.
The high rate tax payers will be the driving force of economic revival by making money and investing it in jobs.
Is this true ? Surely most rich people have their money and are just trying to keep it.
Surely most innovate companies and products originate from the middle classes, where there are enough resources to provide a good education but there is also a drive and desire to achieve more. I would guess most innovate companies come from the minds of the middle class not people earning over £150,000.
The abolition of the 50% rate is going to go hand in hand with the extension of tax free earnings to £10,000 (which Im in favour of) but guess were the short fall will be made up.
Probably by dropping the 40% tax band even more than planned putting more pressure on the upper middle earners.
I know there is alot of complaining about this child benefit cut but the way the system seems to be going out of kilter with the realities of work.
With a possible £10,000 in tax free, maybe more, it really doesnt make sense for a family to have 1 earner. It will be much better to work part time and try and maximise your tax free potential but I dont think this is how most employers see things.
I mean you could earn £20,000 as a couple and only pay NI soon with 2 part time jobs.
well after 30 years at work you should be able to take early retirement if you've made adequate provisions....
What's that got to do with it? [another 5 years for me, if it matters]
You implied I'd be better off on the dole - how?
Anyway, the Conservaitives are just following the Word of The Lord
Mark 4:25
For he that has, to him shall be given: and he that has not, from him shall be taken even that which he has
so not only encouraging the hard working to become successful and revitalise the economy but re-establishing the country's Christian traditions and values - double win situation, and not before time....
"Jealous are we?
Why should people who create jobs for other people, make the UK operate, generally make the UK a richer country pay 50% of every thing they work there arses off for over to the tax man? "
This would have a little more merit as an argument if there were any evidence that people who create jobs and generate (as opposed to harvest) wealth actually earn more than £140k
Most of the rich in that bracket are actually in parasitc jobs that harm the economy such as bankers accountants or top end public utilitys . Many in that bracket derive either their job security or their income stream from public funds eg top lawyers A2E executives Rail companies. No harm in making them contribute in a progressive way.
If they don't like it they can always leave the country i'm sure we will cope without them.
"10,703,654 people did apparently."
Whichever whay you spin that number, it isn't an election 'victory' by a long stretch.
What would be an election victory then? 9,552,436? 10,724,953?
I wondered how long it would be before bankers got a trolling
Cunning new pro-active moderating tactic shocker 😉
Pre-empt the day's obvious lefty-righty subject and confine it to a single thread.
Brilliant, I like the new forum 🙂
There was someone on Radio 4 this morning from some business consortium based in Pall Mall (how I chuckled) trying to say that the 50%-ers included 'normal people' who fit tyres and run hairdressers, and we could employ more tyre fitters and hairdressers if we dropped the 50%. Weak.
Ultimately there aren't enough figures to prove anything either way: Osborne's decision will most likely boil down to 'upsetting your mates by keeping it on for a year' versus 'can the people who can be bothered to vote be convinced it's good for them if we scrap it?'. 😕
Ooh - how about 11,872,180 - would that be an election victory? How about 12,208,758? Or even 13,948,385?
I wondered how long it would be before bankers got a trolling
That fine, upstanding body are much maligned
http://www.economist.com/node/21549961
aracer - Member"10,703,654 people did apparently."
Whichever whay you spin that number, it isn't an election 'victory' by a long stretch.What would be an election victory then? 9,552,436? 10,724,953?
Read the other posts.
FPTP system is screwed and not necessarily representative of the views of people who get out to vote. I mean this for the 2005 election too by the way. Especially not representative if you fail to get a majority, and then carry on in a coalition pretty much (with the exception of the AV referendum) as if you had done. The electoral boundary 'reforms' following this election result and the status quo being maintained at the AV referendum are no conincidence at all: this is a party loading the dice for the next election in case even fewer people vote for them.
[edit] Ooooh, I rattled Tory-Boy's cage so much he posted the same lame rhetorical question twice but with different numbers. 8) Maybe he will post it a third time with some decimal points too. 😉
Banking - its just a job and we not all the same
hilldodger - Member
Look after "the rich" - you bet, it's the future of the country at stake !The high rate tax payers will be the driving force of economic revival by making money and investing it in jobs.
The doleys don't pay taxes, the illegals don't pay taxes, the cash-in-handers don't pay taxes, the students don't pay taxes - if "the rich" leave the country who will support the lazy poor in their alcohol, nicotine and saturated fat fuelled lives ?
I'm trying to work out if that is sarcasm or not.
Each and everyone of those groups names does pay tax in the form of VAT. And as research has demonstrated the poorest people in society pay a higher proportion of their income in tax.
Read the other posts.
I don't think any of those really added anything to your argument that some number of people voting for you doesn't constitute an election victory. You don't seem to have a very good understanding of the way UK politics work - maybe you should check out which elections and parties my latest set of popular vote figures are from, there is a subtle difference from the previous set. I see you also disagree with 2005, but what about 2001, where Labour's popular vote was a huge 0.2% higher than the Tories got this time?
Loving the "Tory-boy" ad-hom BTW. Particularly appropriate I think when I'm just commenting on the way elections work, rather than anything party-political, and my latest set of figures includes more than one party.
obvious troll is....so not only encouraging the hard working to become successful and revitalise the economy but re-establishing the country's Christian traditions and values - double win situation, and not before time....
this is all your fault drac
aracer: whoosh!
maybe you should check out which elections and parties my latest set of popular vote figures are from
I couldn't be bothered to google them to find out which ones matched which elections were from, alas the new forum format doesn't do irony any better than the old one did. My point is the numbers don't make that much of a difference if you support a FTPT sytem and then twiddle the boundaries to load the dice a little for next time. You may as well have decimal points, fractions and anything else 'countable' for all the difference a million votes one way or the other on a national level can make for the geographical distribution of your support and how many seats you actually win.
You have outed yourself as a Tory enough times on here for most that take an interest in the politix threads on here to remember. Steaming in with that first post didn't help TBH.
alcohol, nicotine and saturated fat fuelled lives ?
and the smokers n drinkers pay a shed load more tax on top
Anyone ever heard of the Laffer Curve?
I think it has something to do with economics.
😆
The laffer curve? Brilliant.
Where do we think the top of the laffer curve should be on the 'percentage' axis then? (hums Robin Hood music)
If you are asking what percentage I think high earners should be taxed at then its got to be less than 50%. Isn't that what Laffer tells us?
The Laffer curve is bullshine.
Laffer curve can be shown to maximise tax incomes at anything between 35% to 75%.