Public vs Private (leave the trolling at the door)

More likely if it wasn’t for the next 10-20% that’d be the case. That top 1% avoid a significant amount of the taxes they ‘should’ pay.

That is so ass backwards. if the 1% didn’t take make all the money there would be more less to go around and people could would have higher wages and pensions higher taxes and lower pensions as a result.

FTFY

Take a look at the graph at the bottom of the page here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13633966

Yep, that’s deciles which was my point. You can’t see the top 1% can you?

you’re the mugs who are striking for this to continue!

Am I?

EDIT: I see JY post was removed, thanks.

A good graph showing the tax burden breakdown here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm

For those who want to continue with adult conversation a good graph showing the tax burden breakdown here.

That shows the income tax burden as a total of income tax paid rather than e.g. income tax paid as a proportion of income or tax paid as a proportion of income.

If you watch the BBC2 program from last night on iplayer, regarding how they spend your money it goes into some good detail on this. They also have a good calculator on the web page which shows where you sit.

Its all irrelvant – the capture of vast swathes of the nations wealth by asmall group impoverishes us all. Fair taxation on them would mean plenty of money for decent pensions all round.

Its nothing to do with wealth creation- of else they would not be increasing their remuneration when share prices and profits were not increasing.

Im a registered nurse working in the nhs. I have 14 years experience, a degree, and various courses that are more specific to my role. I also have my pension that ive paid into for eleven of those years. I didnt pay into it while i was a student nurse. Im still friends with most of my group of mates from school. A couple of them work in engineering, one in construction and one for a large car manufacturer. They all earn more than me but none of them have a pension because they say they cant afford one. If these nhs pension reforms are the start of preparing the nhs for privatisation, as myself and many of my colleagues think, i suspect they wont be able to afford health insurance either!

Once its gone its gone.

Right – so what you have is hearsay not proof.

Nope, I have proof. I have a good number of friends who it has happened to.

hear·say
? ?A
noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one’s direct knowledge:

So lets just say you were wrong then

Fair taxation on them would mean plenty of money for decent pensions all round.

50% of earnings not enough?

ar·gu·men·ta·tive? ?[ahr-gyuh-men-tuh-tiv]
adjective

1. fond of or given to argument and dispute; disputatious; contentious: The law students were an unusually argumentative group.

They avoid that – have you not looked at the numbers? the top 1% hide their incomes take it in shares / bonuses etc. they pay less than the middle earners as %.

Anyway for the superrich 50% is no where near enough. Its immoral that we can have pensioners dying for lack of money to pay for heating and people taking vast sums out of the economy simply because they have the power to do so without any merit or rationale at all.

many on here are argumentative and at times I can be as can you and obvioulsty TJ- does this alter the fact you were wrong?
Unfortunately very few are capable of admitting an error even blatantly obvious ones [ one wonders why they choose to debate if they will always just be right/ refuse to aknowledge error].
Serioulsy why debate if you are not willing to change your mind or accept you got things wrong. It is an exchange of ideas not just a soapbox for your own views or it is not really a debate.
Your reply is a really gracious and succesful way for you to save face and retain your credibility though , well done..I am sure it will work

So for people who earn over £150k a year, what percentage do you think they should be taxed at?

£150 000 are not the super rich – merely the rich – its the top 1% I am concerned with.

Personally I think the fairest way is to have a multiplier – so in any company or organisation the best paid can only be a certain multiplier of the lowest paid. 20 times perhaps?

do you think a million a week is ever fair recompense?

I’m ok with 50% for that as it goes. What I’m not ok with is the ones who earn that but don’t pay 50%.

do you think a million a week is ever fair recompense?

I do actually. So long as that person is truly delivering value to the company that outweighs the cost (eg salary and benefits).

Very few people can, mind but then how many people actually earn a million a week?

do you think a million a week is ever fair recompense?

Yep, for some jobs definitly.

When you are leading a multi-national company, delivering Billion Dollar profits to shareholders and keeping 250,000 people employed. Sounds like a fair wage to me.

Your reply is a really gracious and succesful way for you to save face and retain your credibility though , well done..I am sure it will work

I’ve seen a lot of your argumentative posts and refuse to get drawn into the you’re wrong, you’re an idiot, tedium that you degenerate most threads you touch into, so lets just move on.

I’m ok with 50% for that as it goes. What I’m not ok with is the ones who earn that but don’t pay 50%.

For me this is key, along with the big businesses turning over multi-million profits, and getting away with not paying what tax they should be paying.

When you are leading a multi-national company, delivering Billion Dollar profits to shareholders and keeping 250,000 people employed. Sounds like a fair wage to me.

Of course, it’s actually those 250k people are keeping that person employed… (I’ll accept that it can be reasonably argued both ways though)

And of course the question is hard to answer objectively but is that particular person definitely providing that value to the company? Some no doubt do, others, I’ll bet don’t and that’s where there may well be an issue as it typically means then that the people lower down the ladder are effectively underpaid for their contribution to the company.

but is that particular person definitely providing that value to the company? Some no doubt do, others, I’ll bet don’t

Its a very good question however they don’t elect themselvesto that position, they are voted in and retained there when they deliver the results. When they don’t they are booted out. If anyone could do it, the wages would be a lot lower.

If you took the money of the top 1% and shared it out, how long do you think it’d be before they had it back again?

Its a very good question however they don’t elect themselvesto that position, they are voted in and retained there when they deliver the results. When they don’t they are booted out. If anyone could do it, the wages would be a lot lower.

do you really believe that? its a small group of people that vote for each other – and there clearly is no link to results otherwise we would not see massive increases in remuneration while profits fall.

do you really believe that?

Yes, that is what happens. Unlike in the Public Sector where if you are crap at your job you just get promoted into some middle management position to keep you out of the way!! 😉

do you think a million a week is ever fair recompense?

Average pay for a FTSE 100 boss is £5m or £100k a week – a 10th of what you are quoting and about the same as John Terry!

these nhs pension reforms are the start of preparing the nhs for privatisation, as myself and many of my colleagues think

Yup – they are definitely softening up the workforce. It’s why the likes of Circle are playing a long game…

The NHS isn’t perfect by any means – but it is certainly being taken for granted. As for working-in-harness till you fall (permanently) sick, I’m not sure the incumbent political class have the slightest understanding of the graft, skills and aptitude required to work – day in, day out – on, say, a trauma & ortho’ ward with predominantly elderly patients. TBH, I suspect the likes of Gove would pish themselves with fear if they had to work a shift in their local hospital – but walking a mile in somebody else’s blood/sh!te/vomit would do ’em a power of good. Double for Daily Fail journalists, of course. 😈

I’ve seen a lot of your argumentative posts and refuse to get drawn into the you’re wrong, you’re an idiot, tedium that you degenerate most threads you touch into, so lets just move on.

Thanks for the gentle ad hominem to try and deflect attention away from your wrongness and inability to accept that wrongness
I dont know why you think this is more credible approach than just accepting the obvious fact that what you cited was self evidently hearsay.
move on means you aint gonna admit the obvious fact that you cited hearsay evidence in defence of the fact your evidence was hersay – it is pretty obvious what you did .
yes I will move on but you shall remain in denial [ not real denial as you are not trying to argue it was not hearsay as you are not that daft ]
Hope you have saved enough face there to remain happy and secure

Hope you have saved enough face there to remain happy and secure

Good one! You really are very frustrated aren’t you?

Ok, I will let myself get drawn to just say one thing.

Hearsay, is rumours you hear from unsubstantiated sources. These are good friends of mine so the source is sound however I admit that as you don’t know these people then you will, of course, choose not to believe me. So I am not wrong, but can’t prove to you I am right so as I said we will just leave it there. What you have done a good job of is deflect away from the real discussion and problems which do exist and need to be changed!

Its hearsay, literally what you have heard said or definition according to Google

(1)Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated; rumor.
(2)The report of another person’s words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

You fall bang into (2) now argue about something interesting.

You fall bang into (2) now argue about something interesting.

I’m not arguing!! 🙄

so you accept you are wrong then 😉

I am really not trying to spoil this thread but you are just wrong your evidence was hearsay

I will watch the programme on catch up tonight

He’s not wrong because he can’t prove something. It could be true/correct. he’s not in a court of law either.

of course, that doesn’t mean he’s right either. the facts are that it could be either as far as anyone on here is concerned. doesn’t help the discussion much but then it seems that not much would.